The Dallas News (thanks to Anthony) speaks out about the Khomeini tribute held recently by Muslims in Dallas.
Khomeini led the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew the corrupt shah and replaced the government with a brutal Islamic theocracy that today is locked in battle with reformers seeking to end a quarter century of repression. Khomeini preached worldwide violent Islamic revolution, thundering that "those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.""Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing?" Khomeini challenged fellow clerics in a 1981 speech. "Qu'ran says: kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God." The tyrant also exhorted his followers to "kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all."
That's some vision. Yet a Muslim group based in Irving hosted a seminar earlier this month paying "tribute to the great Islamic visionary." It's chilling to think that any local Muslim would be willing to honor such a man, especially with the United States under the threat of attack by Islamic terrorists.
Dismayingly, the list of speakers at the Irving event included some of North Texas' best-known mainstream Islamic figures, including Dr. Yusuf Kavakci of Dallas Central Mosque, widely considered a moderate. He and other leaders shared the roster with Mohammed Asi, a radical Washington imam whom, according to The Washington Post, U.S. officials suspect to be an Iranian agent.
Dr. Kavakci declined two invitations to tell us why he attended the conference. We tried to obtain a tape of the conference, but we're told none is available. Another attendee, Mohamed Elibiary, president and CEO of the Plano-based Freedom and Justice Foundation, shares his reasons for attending on the opposite page. Still, we are hard-pressed to understand what good could possibly come from attending – let alone hosting – such a forum.
Event organizer Imam Shamshad Haider told us that Khomeini has been unjustly portrayed in the Western media. He complained in a television interview last week that Khomeini had been unfairly judged on only one aspect of his personality.
Imam Haider insists that the theme of the conference was Muslim unity. Other area Muslim leaders who spoke at the event support this contention, saying they agreed to speak to foster cohesion between Sunni and Shia Muslims, not necessarily to endorse Khomeini.
That may be true on one level. But no amount of good Khomeini might have done can possibly balance his blood-soaked legacy. Unity is a poor excuse for legitimizing the views of Khomeini admirers by appearing at this event, even if it drew fewer than 100 attendees, as one participant told us.
If Muslim leaders want to be perceived by the broader community as men of good will and moderation, they need to make clear what they consider radical and extreme and treat it accordingly.
Pockets of Islamic radicalism exist in North Texas. We don't believe – and this is important to get straight – that they characterize most Muslims in the Dallas area. But these elements are here, and we cannot afford to ignore them. Neither can the Muslim community avoid the responsibility for policing itself.
As former FBI counterterrorism chief and Rowlett resident Oliver "Buck" Revell tells us, "If we continue to be deaf, dumb and blind to what's plainly in front of us, we have no one to blame but ourselves."
Or as I put it about the recent demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan in which several people held up Khomeini posters:
Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini’s doctrines — and how many stand with Khomeini — are still forbidden questions for the major media. But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, “Ignore me at your own risk.”
Dismayingly, the list of speakers at the Irving event included some of North Texas' best-known mainstream Islamic figures...
That should say, "FORMERLY mainstream Islamic figures" shouldn't it?
And this is happening IN TEXAS? One would think it would happen someplace like "Queer-ifornia" or "Tax-achusetts" etc. wouldn't one?
Looks like the "tough cowboy" types down in Texas could use some more sand in their diets. What happened to the "hang 'em high" teddy boys that always come crawling out of the woodwork when Judge Roy Moor or the Promise Keepers come to town? Reminds me of the "patriotic militia" gun-nuts in Michigan that stand by whining about black people, Jews, and sissies, while the Muslims do whatever the hell they want.
Khomeini... what a first-class, child-molesting prick.
Here's a related story that should be read, then forwarded on to our Senators and House Representatives. It has much to do with what's happening in our own nation. I already sent a copy to Senator DeWine's office.I encourage all to send it to their elected officials.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16353
In 1979 I watched many thousands of Iranians calling for death to America in the streets of Tehran on TV and I thought, "thank God they are not here!"
Well, fast forward to the present and we have a far different America. The Islamic belief system has penetrated America under the wings of multiculturism and has fostered a parallel universe where Muslims are a privildged class, free to continue undermining America's identity while they colonize as they have all through their history.
WHY have large segments of the globe, Egypt, much of Africa, almost all of Indonesia, Turkey, Iran (Persia), Syria and Lebanon become Islamic?
And now Muslim immigrants allowed in good faith in TEXAS honoring an Islamic tyrant?
Don't think America's present preoccupation with tolerance is new. The countries I just mentioned MUST have been TOLERENT or they would never have been transformed in Moslem societies by a people whose lineage fares from 7th century Saudi Arabia.
So multiculturism is really a modern intrepretation of a concept that historically has torn down nations under their very noses, in this case to a religion which owes its existence to people being tolerent of their intolerance, the ultimate betyral of trust.
7th century Saudi Arabia should read, "the Arabian pennsulula of the 7th century."
Three things of interest about your link, DC.
One, it's a right-wing whine site.
Two, the author works for Larry Klayman, who made a career out of filing frivolous lawsuits agains the Whitehouse until Cheney threatened him with arrest if he was served another subpoena.
Three, the Muslim group in Texas that organized the Hate-fest said "Hollywood movies are Satanic." Where have I heard that before?
I look forward to the day that the secularists, moderates, feminists, liberals, humanists and atheists rise up in Iran and run the Mullahs out of town at gunpoint. They can dig up the rotten corpse of Khomeini and feed it to pigs. I hope they make a video.
KJ
Whay are you calling Front Page Magazine a "Right wing whine site?" Are you aware that Horowitz was once an avowed leftist and came to see the truth of what he once championed? Are you aware that Mr. Spencer's articles are frequently featured on this site as is the case today with his article on the "Death Knell of the West"? Are you at all concerned with the indoctrination of students in higher education to a dangerous leftist ideological perspective?
I suggest you think about these things carefully.
KJ
Another thing, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, especially the sort as above which disparages California in the way you did, it certainally calls your intelligence into question.
A group love-in for Khomeini in not just
"Unworthy of Honor" but rather "Worthy of Dishonor."
The Ayatollah once said:
"Qu'ran says: kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God."
While I considered atheism to be the opposite extreme to religious fanaticism, I haven't a problem with the doctrine of agnosticism.
It is apparent, at least to me, that all religions must and do have the human touch in their creation.
How else can it be for the lonely and frightened human animal to express his desire of eternal life without adding a few intimations of his own to accomomdate the "inspiring" messages of a harsh environment?
These expressions and aspirations also appear to be innate. That being said, I will not argue against, what I believe to be, a congenital feature of mankind.
Thus, we are condemned (or reprieved depending on how one approaches the issue) to live amongst creeds which vie for their supremacy.
And now to my point. If I, as an agnostic, had the choice of deciding supremacy between two tenets, let's say Christianity and Islam, I would certainly choose the former over the latter.
The reason is because my character dictates (to me and by reasonableness, to others) that I might not know what my purpose is, but I do know that it is not a free-for-all in which my baser instincts are encouraged to be expressed.
Mankind lives by laws. We have to. Otherwise, anarchy would ensue and our existence would be threatened.
Jesus did not preach murder and mayhem for those who disagreed with him. Far from it...
On the other hand, what did Muhammad preach? I think the Ayatollah nailed it on the head with the statement, "Mercy is against God."
If there is a god, that is not the way I would view him at all. No thanks, Master Ayatollah!
Khomeini would never have come to power had the US and Britain not overthrown Iran's democratically elected government in the 1950's. As for the claim that the Muslims in the US are a "privildged class, free to continue undermining America's identity while they colonize as they have all through their history", this is a totally absurd claim. Most of the American Muslims are peaceful law-abiding citizens. They might not be "patriotic" since Islam only permits allegiance to God but that most certainly does not mean that they are out to undermine society.
Another thing, Khomeini is popular only because he had a prominent role in the popular overthrowing the thuggish Shah, a foreign puppet. The US embassy was targetted only because it was the US that was the main instigator that brought the Shah to power.
One more thing, the reform movement in Iran is being run by the CLERICS themselves, so please do not assume that it requires one to be an atheist (a.k.a Godless) person to want reform against corruption.
Keithjoy, you are always such an ignorant troll.
Frontpage Magazine is indeed a conservative site, but they have shown far more credibility over the past few years than your bottom-feeding left wing rags like the New York and L.A. Times. If you could crawl out of that pool of vomit you call “liberal thought” long enough, you could learn to judge things based upon content, which in the case, is accurate.
You even apparently have a problem with someone stopping frivolous lawsuits. Must be the John Edwards in you speaking up.
Of course, your “logic” probably approves of the Daily Kos comment yesterday where he blamed Bush for the deaths of yesterday’s mess hall attack in Mosul.
Pathetic, but oh so liberal.
And don't hold your breath until your list of Arab “liberal” friends act.
Like liberals in this country, the groups you’ve listed are progressive in name only, and their actions are nothing more than a very conservative game of jealously guarding their piddling little “turf.” Even a child of four can see that liberals only want to protect the status quo. They will never do something so bold as to promote change.
Change takes risk, and liberals are averse to risk. They might loose something, and they are too greedy for that.
The only words they know are “I,” “my,” and “mine.” Protect my Social Security benefits, screw those that come behind me. Protect my right not be believe in God, and screw the other 90% of the population that does.
I want. I want. I want.
There is no intelligence in liberalism, just pure Id.
Thanks for once again proving that point.
SHUKRI
So I take it that you think that a Judeo-Christian, western nation like America should continue to accept a people you admitted bear no alligence to ANY Nation-State, either now, nor historically, without transforming their host country or causing such strife, that a country has to be created to accomidate them as Pakistan.
Do you think America in its current form can continue to exist with such a hostile presence? Or does it not matter to you?
Shukri,
"As for the claim that the Muslims in the US are a "privildged class, free to continue undermining America's identity while they colonize as they have all through their history", this is a totally absurd claim. Most of the American Muslims are peaceful law-abiding citizens."
What's absurd? You don't have to be a raping-pillaging Holy Prophet to "undermine America's identity". The whole point is that, what with PC "diversity", muslims can attend Khomeini love-ins or push for sharia laws to their heart's content, all while being "peaceful, law-abiding citizens." ("citizens" I say sarcasticaly)
Oh, and you should say "allegiance to Allah", and not "God", if you don't mind. I certainly would like the Christian and Muslim gods to have different names.
Shukri says,
"They might not be "patriotic" since Islam only permits allegiance to God but that most certainly does not mean that they are out to undermine society."
Then what does it mean?
Will the allegiance-to-God-only law-abiding Muslim citizens allow me to criticize Muhammad and the religion of Islam, as Christianity and all other religions allow, without retribution to my person?
Will the peaceful Muslim living amongst this secular society refrain from imposing their minority will against a populus who desires not the dictates of the Sharia?
How will an allegiance-to-God-only law-abiding Muslim incorporate this not only authoritative and arrogant, but subjective dogma into a life lived amongst a state which clearly states a separation of church and state?
If what shukri says is true and muslims can only show faith and allegiance to 'allah' then NO muslim can ever be a US citizen according to the oath they must swear:
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance
to the United States of America
Oath:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
I dont understand, it is crystal clear that Islam is expanding and gaining momentum in the 21st century. A century which was to be defined by exploration and conquest of disease, technology, space and the general betterment of mankind, will be the age of revived 7th century of Islamic expansion. What does that mean? Look ant any one of the more than 70 Islamic countries on earth for a clue.
Andrew asks,
"What does that mean?"
If what you state is indeed true, then it would be a step back into the dark ages.
I personally believe the rest of mankind (5 billion strong) have no desire to revert back to a religious based hierarchy.
Retrogression is best left to the primitives.
Moe's Foe
I hope you are correct. Just ask the non-Moslem's in Sudan what Arab-Moslem rascism and supremacy is accomplishing in that region. Or better yet, why is Bethleham, birthplace of Jesus Christ, void of Christians?
Why are you calling Front Page Magazine a "Right wing whine site?"
Ummm....because it's a Right wing whine site.
And Catharine often doesn't merely link, but cuts and pastes twenty-page articles from newsmax.com. DC ref-ing the Horowitz blog would be like me ref-ing www.mikemoore.com or something.
Are you aware that Horowitz was once an avowed leftist and came to see the truth of what he once championed?
Yes, I read all about it in his book. Seems a friend of his was killed by a "left-wing radical" Black Panther. Guess he never heard of the not-so-liberal KKK.
Let me show you how silly that statement is; try this one: Are you aware that many Muslims were once avowed Christians and "came to see the truth" of what they once championed?
Does that make you think Islam is right? I hope not.
Are you aware that Mr. Spencer's articles are frequently featured on this site as is the case today with his article on the "Death Knell of the West"?
Yes.
Are you at all concerned with the indoctrination of students in higher education to a dangerous leftist ideological perspective?
ABSOLUTELY. I first became aware of the "Israeli-Arab" problem while attending college. I sought out as much information as I could and drew my own conclusions. (Perhaps you'd like to read them.)
My conclusion is that the Israeli-Arab situation is to be expected when Islam faces resistance. Muslim fundamentalists are to blame for atrocities down through history, and plundered/took over/ruined everything they encountered from Persia and northern India to Indonesia and all the way back to Senegal.
Everywhere they go, everything in their path is destroyed. (The pyramids and the big Buddha statues in Afghanistan are just small examples.)
Everyone is killed, enslaved, or made to convert (or at best marginalized.) SOME on the left (we don't all think alike, believe it or not) are squarely against Islam and Jihad because Islam is incompatible with human rights.
These young hippies are all in a tizzy over Israel and "palestine" because they have been lied to and lied to and made to believe that the "palestinians" are suffering because of the Joooz! in Israel. They hypocritically ignore other problems.
I often tell them that in the past 14 years, less than 10,000 people have been killed on both sides in Israel, including Arafat's two failed terrorist "intifadas". Meanwhile during the same time period, in the Sudan 2 MILLION people have been killed, and it was just in the news a couple of weeks ago, that 3.8 MILLION people have been killed in Zaire, Democratic Republic of Congo, whatever-in the past six years! It was in the news for two days, and then GONE.
I used to argue on campus with the phony hippies, Naderites, Muslims, and other Israel bashers/Muslim apologists, including several of my teachers. I even convinced a couple of them, by using the historical record of what Islam has done. I am proud to be a Zionist and not afraid to tell anyone that I am.
I saw the wretched Dawa booth equating the Star of David with a swastika, Ariel Sharon with Hitler, etc. etc. on Holocaust Memorial Day, and I didn't stand for it. I got into a shouting match with the lead Jihadi and a coven of his little ass-kissing tagalongs that went on for over an hour. I wrote a letter to the president of the University and the next year, guess what: the Dawa booth wasn't even set up on Shoah Memeorial Day.
I harassed democracynow! about their bias by comparing the 80 citations on their archives page to "Palestine/Israel" with the 3 or so on "Women's Rights" and 15 or so on "Environment." I harangued them to the point that they TOOK DOWN the archives link.
So there; I'VE MADE A DIFFERENCE. I haven't just gone out and told people how stupid or un-American they are. Look, the Jihad has reached out to the left wing in media by sending donations and in the universities by funding departments. But they are also making inroads with the right-wing. I have mentioned James Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Bush Sr. and Grover Norquist on this site many times. Those are big guns, my friend. You and I both know that all of these guys have way more pull than some dipshit professor in California.
I know how to convince liberals that Islam is a dangerous cult: you site the historical record, like the memoirs of the wretched Moghal invaders of India.
You can get through to some of them. No; not most. Some will tell you point-blank that Ariel Sharon is the most evil tyrant in the world today and when you ask them about Suharto and Pinochet they don't even know who they are.
Now, let me tell you how to NOT convince college kids that Islam is dangerous. Align yourself with right-wing know-it-alls like David Horowitz that take out full-page ads in college papers refuting the concept of reparations. (I too am against reparations by the way.)
No political (or otherwise) idealogy is 100% right on the money, that's why I have some left-wing views and some right-wing views.
Just look around this site. You get some left-wingers that comment once or twice and then never comment at all... it is likely that they just give up on jihadwatch.com and conclude that the Jihad really is just a "clash of civilizations" or a "failure for the West to be tolerant enough" or some such. Then it’s back to the Edward Said crap for them. Next time they go to school they'll be sporting a "Free Palestine" tee-shirt with their usual uniform of sandals, jeans, and blond dreadlocks.
I suggest you think about these things carefully.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Another thing, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, especially the sort as above which disparages California in the way you did, it certainly calls your intelligence into question
Gosh, I was just quoting the way my right-wing friends do. Sorry; I didn't know that you were so easily offended.
Andrew,
Progression and enlightenment will succeed. There is a lot of work to be done, but it will succeed.
Our brains were given us to think, solve and create.
A mind left to ponder one message by one man given so long ago while dismissing everything else as irrelevant or useless will atrophy like a grape lying on the sands of the Sahara.
This existence can't be what God afforded us.
KJ
I understand your position. But labeling things "Left Wing" or "Right wing" is not helpful especially when many people are really not all one thing or the other, but rather a combination of different ideas, thoughts and experiences. The one unifying bond should be our shared values and heritage, which is the legacy of our national identity which must not be taken for granted any more or we will loose it.
Your comment about Front Page Magazine, which is fighting a legitimate foe,is too harsh, it does not deserve to be dismissed in such an unjustified, cavalier fashion considering the good work Horowitz is doing.
About your comment regarding California as "Queer-fornia", I ask you how that can do anything but turn-off a lot of people who wish to engage in elevated discourse which you seem perfectly capable of.
loose=lose
Keith, I whole heartedly agree with you that the Ayatollah Assahola Khomeini's corpse is rotten and should be fed to the pigs..
I disagree with you about Frontpage.mag, just because they don't respect John "Herman Munster" Kerry doesn't mean you have to call it a whine site. Please stop mixing your political bullshit in with these topics.
The point I was trying to make was that CAIR's agenda is once again exposed and that our elected officials, both GOP and Democrat, need to do something about it. We're still one nation of ass kickers, and these jabs are getting a bit bothersome.
Q: Why are you calling Front Page Magazine a "Right wing whine site?"
kj: Ummm....because it's a Right wing whine site.
"Ummm....because..."
Wow. You must have been in the Forensic Club in high school, kj.
Speaking about Texas letting this go on, I have a niece that lives within five miles of this mosque and she heard nothing about this convention. I hope that the truth is being spread now, most people in Texas ARE in the dark on the subject of Islam. As I have said before, the newspapers are either afraid to publish some letters to the editor or are dhimmified.
Shukri posts: Khomeini would never have come to power had the US and Britain not overthrown Iran's democratically elected government in the 1950's.
That's bull. Khomeini came to power because the Iranian people put him there - the US certainly didn't choose Khomeini for them.
Furthermore, the reform movement run by the clerics is bunk - President Khatami was heckled mercilessly when he made it clear that the reformist clerics are more interested in maintaining the status quo than moving towards true democracy.
Who are the true democrats in Iran? They're the men and women getting the snot knocked out of them in Evin Prison and the ones who are lucky or smart enough to avoid joining them.
Khatami & Company? Don't insult our intelligence.
BTW, Shukri, I'm not condoning what the US and Britain did back in '53, and I sympathize with the Iranian democracy movement, as well. But let's be honest about Khomeini - he rode into Tehran on the Iranian people's shoulders.
Watch out what you ask for, eh?
O.T. but a good read,
We have 2 new members to the site and the e-mail sign up.
The first is "Iceviking" and the second is "Boma".
When Boma first contacted me, he told me his story of living in a European country and the problems they have there.
I have edited some parts out, but I'd like to share his story and please, welcome the 2 new members.
Susan;
I believe this is your real name so I use that.
For a long time I have been reading Jihad/Dhimmi Watch and never before have I seen so many with the same views as I regarding Muslims coming together in the same place.
I am not a good writer so I usually just read but I am becoming more and more curious about my fellow soul mates on the list.
Let me therefore introduce myself:
When I post on the list I am using the name ?boma?
I am a xxxxxxx, born and lived as protestant, and come from a family consisting mostly of civil servants and military men since the time begun. As a curiosity I can mention one of the family members, Oscar, fought under general Sherman during the American civil war and ended as brigadier and commander of the 17th Army Engineers. They called him ?The Brave Devil?.
I live in a small town in xxxxxx called xxxxxxxx, which is about 100 miles from xxxxxxxx. Besides my military experiences (I have seen Congo, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia first hand) I have degrees in economics and both construction and electronics engineering. Waiting for my pension (I am 63 years old) I am now working as a xxxxxxx.
My experience with Muslims is first hand. I married a girl from Kosovo for about 10 years ago and I am therefore the proud father of a 9-year-old boy.
As a convert my wife got hell from the family but they lived so far away that they did not became a threat. But the Muslims even in this small town reacted with hostility. I, as the Satan that has led one of their faiths astray, was threatened with everything up to murder and that still continues.
The Police asked me to return when something has really happened and some days after my first complaint I was called up by the xxxxxx (the xxxxxx equivalent to FBI) who asked if I could provoke a little extra as one was suspected to be the one who had sent a letter bomb killing a woman in xxxxxxx earlier that year.
So the last 10 years I have constantly been looking over my shoulder and open my mail with extreme care, as it never ceased. The pressure on my wife was too much so our marriage broke. She will however never go back to Islam and nowadays she calls herself Buddhist.
I was not the one who declared war on the Islamists; it was the other way around. But I am prepared to fight them with all means; with word or with weapon in hand, they chose the means.
In xxxxxxx there is a distinction between the dhimmi government and the people. The government has not yet understood what the people understood many years ago that Islam is a threat to us all. xxxxxx in general are slow to react but when the reaction comes they will be unstoppable. Ever heard of the Vikings?
My work and my boy takes a toll out of me so I may not answer your mail directly as I get them but I will answer. Hope to hear from you.
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
And tonight, I recieved this in answer to my request to post his story:
Susan;
Thanks for your answer.
Of course you can publish my letter on the conditions mentioned.
I understand that you are full aware of the threats and I think neither
you
or I will benefit from a closer encounter especially from unidenfied
adversaries.
For some years I have had the thought that leaving the country with my
boy
would be the best solution but then comes the question where to and how
to
obtain a decent living.
When it comes to Jihad Watch I follow the postings as they confirm that
I am
not totally paranoid - my reality differs so much from what ordinary
ignorant people find normal.
If you would be interested in further communications with me you are
welcome
although I might be a little late with my answers.
xxxxxx
I will stay in touch and offer any support I can.
Here's the link:
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildabuse/index.htm
For some reason, the whole message isn't coming through.
The link posted above was sent to me by Suzi,
It made me sick to my stomach.
Half way down the page, read the stories about Female mutilation.
And to say that Christians and Muslims have a lot in common is ridiculous.
Hey kj,
Refreshing, thanks.
There are many here who think only the conservatives understand the danger or are working against it.
It is incredibly frustrating that many liberal and left leaners refuse to wake up and smell the coffee, but i think what is being said and done in the name of islam might be, gradually, doing the job.
Keep up the good work.
kj makes some good points, sure.
So the way to get liberals up against jihad is to welcome them with open arms, use rational arguments, be polite and understand etc., eh? You seriously think that hasn't been tried? (Sure, the conservatives could maybe try some more, though.)
Maybe its also time kj tried to tell his liberal pals not to go around insulting conservative sensibilities when it comes to religion and economic matters. Just as all liberals aren't the DU/ moonbat/ moveon variety, so aren't all rightwingers the KKK variety, thank you.
The sorry (and unsubstantiated) liberal presumtption of, or rather claim to, a greater general intelligence, awareness, sensitivity and knowledge than conservatives is more often than not one big reason why liberals and conservatives don't get along so well. Let the liberals know that just as conservatives aren't always right, neither are the liberals!
Lastly, if its ok to equate Bush with Hitler like osme of the loonier leftists do, then you know just how much work needs to be done in the liberal re-education dept.
What's wrong with insulting conservative sensibilities when it comes to religion and economic matters? Conservatives have come up with some stupid programmes. What about the absurd project to promote sexual abstinence (ring something) among American teenagers with federal funding? That's stupid. What did Reagan's economic policies lead to? The answer is a transfer of wealth from middle class and skilled professionals to owners of capital assets. Reagan’s tax and fiscal policies have made the US into a Latin American rentier regime with miserable job security and enormous income inequality. Reagan also cut off all funding to the UN family planning unit so we can thank him for burgeoning third world muslim populations just dying to get into Europe and the US. Reagan was a moron who by the way supported the likes of Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan, sold arms to Iran etc. By the way, in a free country we should be able to insult a religion when appropriate, which is something that separates us from the muslims.
http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=1289_0_2_0_C
Here's the link to a CAIR posting showing support for the release of the holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel,CAIR is upset that non-Citizen with forged documents or professed lies about their
history are being detained until the deportation
order is finalized.
The fact that almost all the persons held are Muslims doesn't seem to set off alarm-bells that
it's far to easy for Jihadists or Militant Islamists to live among the Muslim community in Canada and attend Mosques where nobody reports them or even cares to see them as a threat to Canada.
CAIR-Canada has repeated the "Big-Lie" for so long now that the story is being accepted as the truth when dealing with the Mehar Arar deportation
from N.Y. to the middle east.
Here's the FACTS that CAIR is hiding:
Arar came to Canada when he was 17 and claimed "Refugee" status as a victim of oppression and a threat to his life in the Middle East where he was born.
Arar has gone back to the Middle East before since Refugee's only need to wait up to 6 months
after the claim to return to the Country of oppression.
Arar quickly married to assure his stay in Canada which is the normal practice by refugge's
along with the scam of producing a baby in Canada
for the calim of it being Canadian.
Arar visited Tunisia with his wife and two kids
but upon return his trail was different from his wifes return,he showed up in N.Y. to connect to a flight to Canada and was questioned about this odd vacation where he abandoned his kids and traveled along.
Arar stated in a TV special that he was well treated by the FBI and got a comfortable private jets and excellent food on his deportation flight
out od the USA.
Arar was sent to "JORDAN" and not the "SYRIA"
claim made by CAIR-Canada,blind-folded,he said he was taken in a SUV and put in a Syrian jail where he now "ALLEGES" he was tortured.
Arar has not produced one shread of evidence that he suffered from the torture and his Public Press-Releases with his Lawyer appeared "Scripted" and very vivid and detailed for someone having PTSD.
Arar's Lawyer launched a $400 Million dollar suit against Canadians for his ordeal even though the USA sent him to Jordan and they sent him to his Native Country which he still held a Citizenship while now proclaiming to be a loyal Canadian wanting his kids to be proud Canadians too.
CAIR will incite more Middle East immigrants to ebgage in violent acts against the infidels as we saw in the arrest of the 19 year old that fire-bombed a Jewish school at the Hamas leader was terminated and drove him to react as he claims.
CAIR also fails to report that Ghamil Gharbi was a Muslim performing Jihad against the 14 female students that were murdered by him for wanting a education to do jobs that were usualy filled by males. Ghamil shot about 19 females after he ordered the male students to leave the classroom,14 died and many still are affected psychologically from seeing the event or being a casuality.
He finished the Jihad by turning the rifle on himself and comitting suicide as to be with Allah in paradise.
Yup, can bash the right for lots,
and can bash the left for lots,
both also have ideas that are worth our consideration.
For various reasons the right seem to recognize the islamic reach for world hegemony while many of the people i would normally agree with, have their heads stuck firmly in the sand ( or somewhere else ).
Off topic, but in contrast to the happy puff piece that ran for over a week on Muslim halal products, here is what the BBC gives the USA for a Christmas story, "Cuban artists give USA the finger":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4119759.stm
This tremendous news piece gets top billing three days before Christmas with photo in WORLD ONLINE, along with an unflattering piece on Martha Stewart.
The BBC vilifies the USA and makes Islam look like the happy, happy land of peace, peace.
The BBC Charter is a farce!
Andrew said:
SHUKRI
So I take it that you think that a Judeo-Christian, western nation like America...
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."
The above quote is from the article of a treaty that was signed and ratified by then-President John Adams.
...should continue to accept a people you admitted bear no alligence to ANY Nation-State
According to Shariah law itself, a Muslim is obligated to follow the laws of a host country and if he is unable to do so, he is required by his own religion to leave that land! We need have no fear of Muslims in America so long as they are following their own Islamic law.
Do you think America in its current form can continue to exist with such a hostile presence? Or does it not matter to you?
It does matter to me but I think that your question does not come up simply because there isn't a huge hostile Muslim population in the US. Armed militia groups, almost all of the Christian, present a greater threat.
Cornholio said:
Shukri,
"As for the claim that the Muslims in the US are a "privildged class, free to continue undermining America's identity while they colonize as they have all through their history", this is a totally absurd claim. Most of the American Muslims are peaceful law-abiding citizens."
What's absurd?
The claim that American Muslims are "colonizing" America. It seems to me to be the other way around, what with the US in Iraq. As for "colonize as they have all through their history". You would be correct if you were referring to Western history.
Oh, and you should say "allegiance to Allah", and not "God", if you don't mind. I certainly would like the Christian and Muslim gods to have different names.
There is only one supreme God. And he is the God of the Muslim, the Jew, the Christian, the Hindu, the Atheist, the Zoroastrian and whatever other religious denomination you may have in mind. GOD is Lord of all that exists and he does NOT belong to you.
Moe's Foe says:
Shukri says,
"They might not be "patriotic" since Islam only permits allegiance to God but that most certainly does not mean that they are out to undermine society."
Then what does it mean?
It means that they would/should be loyal to God and their Sacred Law. And being loyal to God does not necessarily mean undermining society.
Will the allegiance-to-God-only law-abiding Muslim citizens allow me to criticize Muhammad and the religion of Islam, as Christianity and all other religions allow, without retribution to my person?
In America, of course. Say all you want here and who would assault you for saying it? But if you were to deliberately go and insult someone on their turf, you would be begging for punishment.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is a good thing to keep in mind when travelling abroad.
Will the peaceful Muslim living amongst this secular society refrain from imposing their minority will against a populus who desires not the dictates of the Sharia?
I think that we are overestimating our own importance when we think that a significant percentage of Muslims are constantly thinking about how to enslave us. Secondly, which Muslims are trying to impose Shariah on everybody, here in the US?
USAgirl says:
If what shukri says is true and muslims can only show faith and allegiance to 'allah' then NO muslim can ever be a US citizen according to the oath they must swear
Not true. A US government website interprets the Oath to mean the following:
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
* support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
* renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and
* bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath. - http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm
Mike said:
That's bull. Khomeini came to power because the Iranian people put him there - the US certainly didn't choose Khomeini for them.
The Iranian people would NEVER have chosen Khomeini had not their democratic government been overthrown.
Furthermore, the reform movement run by the clerics is bunk - President Khatami was heckled mercilessly when he made it clear that the reformist clerics are more interested in maintaining the status quo than moving towards true democracy.
Maybe but there are many clerics including Khatami who are reformist and to suggest that only Atheist/Godless people call for reform is pushing it.
And I suggest all of you to read WHIRLWIND by Janes Clavell
And I suggest all of you to read WHIRLWIND by James Clavell
Welcome Boma and Iceviking.
adorphala:
Reagan was a moron who by the way supported the likes of Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan, sold arms to Iran etc.
Well yes. And FDR was a moron too for having sided with Stalin in WWII (don't forget Stalin's regime holds the world record for peace-time genocide in absolute numbers)... this debate is what is stupid. If you cannot understand that in a imperfect world we don't always get to choose our allies, that hindsight is 20/20 whilst foresight is not, you're wasting good people's time trying to debate them!
"Reagan also cut off all funding to the UN family planning unit so we can thank him for burgeoning third world muslim populations just dying to get into Europe and the US."
If you think the muzzies are gona stopoverbreeding because of some UN program, you've oughtta examine the minute possibility that you might just about be a teeny-weeny bit mistaken, eh?
"By the way, in a free country we should be able to insult a religion when appropriate, which is something that separates us from the muslims."
Finally something we do agree upon. Don't get me wrong, feel free to critically analyse religious doctrine. What I object to in the liberals' approach is lebelling conservatives morons, losers and/or bigots for believing in G_d. THAT is no way to begin any debate and certainly doesn't win you any credit under any definition of free speech.
Adieu.
Voletti
I don't think you can really compare the threat of Hitler and WWII to the USSR and their 'supporting' the communist regime in Afghanistan. FDR had much less choice in who or what he could support.
Reagan, the pope and the whole conservative anti-abortion, anti-conception insanity did have a significant impact on demography starting in the late 70's, early eighties. This included cutting off all funding to the UN population programme. I suggest you study global demographic history a bit closer. Reagan and the pope also frequently made pacts with the most ultra-conservative muslim countries to oppose family planning proposals including those that would benefit female equality, obviously something the muslims would never want.
By the way I'm not a 'liberal' but as dby mentioned both sides have done some pretty stupid things that affect us and have burdened us with the muslim problem. Anyone who can see and understand the muslim threat is an ally whether they are liberal or conservative. Liberal-bashing, however, and a too pronounced right-wing approach, that seems to be an important but not the only thread in this site, will probably only alienate potential allies. How can that be good?
SHUKRI
I normally have little patience with people like you who make fantastical, distorted statements which fly in the face of all logic and common sense.
I think your questioning the basic fact of the Judeo-Christian roots and nature of America is a denial that squarely places you in the realm of the ignorant, propagandists who choose to believe a lie because the perpetuation of a non-truth offers comfort to fragile egos and limited intelligence.
I have every right to express disgust at your comment and certainly offering proof of such an elementary fact as this can only add legitmacy to your clearly impaired mental facalties and so I chose not to enable you.
Andrew said:
I think your questioning the basic fact of the Judeo-Christian roots and nature of America is a denial that squarely places you in the realm of the ignorant, propagandists who choose to believe a lie because the perpetuation of a non-truth offers comfort to fragile egos and limited intelligence.
I have every right to express disgust at your comment and certainly offering proof of such an elementary fact as this can only add legitmacy to your clearly impaired mental facalties and so I chose not to enable you.
The dissembling above which seeks to ignore facts cannot do away with the statement that was ratified and signed by President John Adams. If you could please address this instead of avoiding the point, I would appreciate it. Here it is again:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..." - Treaty of Tripoli Article 11. Ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797
I would point out to you the very careful deliberation of our nations founding fathers in not putting the name "Jesus" but rather "God" in the various documents that we so revere today.
Shukri,
I see you have no issue with using our founding fathers to postulate your agenda, In particular your use of John Adams.
John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :
“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophet hood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ’. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”
You yourself say our founding father omitted the word Jesus and opting for the word God as all inclusive. I beg to differ. Our founding fathers were indeed Christians. With that being said a Christian does not differentiate between Father, son and holy spirit. No more then a Muslim can separate Alah from his messenger Mohammed.
How is it you are so willing to let Alah and Mohammed exist as a cohesive union but Jesus and God are to be separated? An all inclusive God is acceptable but to include Jesus is taking it far. I believe your exclusion of Jesus alone makes your argument null and void for the purpose of this debate.
Wild Hare "Infidel Extraordinaire"
Thank you for responding to the poster called "shukri". I do not wish to entertain such people any further as it really is a waste of time to bother to debate those who question such basic truths as America's foundational heritage as rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage.
For Shukri to bother peddling such an absurd comment off as reasonable debate here should call to question a certain threshold that should be shared by posters here. Without some common foundation from which to draw, there is no point engaging in elementary debate with those whose world view is so drastically and radically different.
If the poster Shukri honestly believes he or she can reasonably introduce such harebrained theories to Jihad Watch and not be immediately considered a member of the lunatic fringe for engaging in such crackpot flights of fancy, a response only serves to lend legitimacy to his/her warped world view and should be avoided. I will not entertain these people anymore.
This is something that is becoming unfortunately more common place today, questioning such basic truths as though any harebrained thought should be seriously entertained and not summarily dismissed as rightly belonging to the realm of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the Muslims were among Columbus’ crew crowd.
Your excellent response regarding John Quincy Adams is complimented by the following link (s):
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201
"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [Clue to Shukri, the religion in question was NOT Islam]
– John Adams, 2nd U.S. president)
http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/articles.asp?HLCA=Back&HLC=9675
Wild Hare "Infidel extraordinaire" said:
...Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series, ...
I would like a source for this alleged statement. I have absolutely confirmed that President Adams and Congress ratified and fully agreed with the Treaty of Tripoli and all articles therein and he instructed all US citizens, civilian and military, to abide by the terms of that treaty.
You yourself say our founding father omitted the word Jesus and opting for the word God as all inclusive. I beg to differ. Our founding fathers were indeed Christians.
I do not deny that. I, however, deny that they wished to found America as a "Christian nation". Hence, they used the broader term of "God".
No more then a Muslim can separate Alah from his messenger Mohammed.
How is it you are so willing to let Alah and Mohammed exist as a cohesive union but Jesus and God are to be separated?
Muslims believe that Mohammed and Jesus peace be upon them were Prophets of God.
I believe your exclusion of Jesus alone makes your argument null and void for the purpose of this debate.
I'm not sure how you figured that out. I am arguing that the founding fathers founded America and specially did not mention "Jesus" in the documents of this country in order to prevent the exclusion of others.
That said, this country was founded on religious principles that are shared with Christians. But it does not mention them as "Christian principles" to avoid the constriction of freedom to a "special" people.
___________________
Andrew:
If the poster Shukri honestly believes he or she can reasonably introduce such harebrained theories to Jihad Watch
First of all Shukri is a male name and it is my real name. Secondly, how is the above theory a harebrained theory? Why don't you prove it to me that its false? Show me where in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or any other significant historical document the specific mention that this is an exclusively Christian country.
Again I would like to know which essay written by Adams contained that alleged statement. A repeat of the relevant portion of the treaty that President John Adams signed and Congress ratified:
"...the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..." - Treaty of Tripoli
THIS IS WHAT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS HAD TO SAY ABOUT islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]"
MORE FROM JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ON islam:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003375.php
"Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims; Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman Turkish State
'“As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated."'
John Quincy Adams on islam:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201
Wow, CGW!
Great links. tks a ton.
Why can't we produce a JQ Adams when we need one? The system has gotten so stultified that a JQ Adams would now find it near impossible to rise... Tiem to change the system itself, or at least its frames of reference.