Relatives of US servicemen killed in Iraq give aid to Fallujah jihadists

Human trash. They don't represent the face of anyone but themselves. "Growing movement"?? What a laugh. This is an example of what excessive drug use does to the mind.

Here we go again giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But the most egregious act is that it gives encouragment to the jihadists that have killed so many of our American soldiers. I`m sure that if you tried to confront these people with some knowledge of what is going on in Iraq and how their actions give the enemy hope, you would get a kind of fogged over stare. Of course the Insurgents don`t really need it since they are so steeped in their determination to bring death to us infidels. They also need to be reminded that giving aid to a fundamental muslim is an insult to him if it comes from Christains or infidels (note the ACEH article on requirement demands on U.S.military aid workers on the tsunami by muslims). These are the same kind of people who will put their hand through a cage to feed the tigers (oh look at the cute little putty cat!)

. . .note the ACEH article on requirement demands on U.S.military aid workers on the tsunami by muslims. . .

Posted by: Mackie at January 2, 2005 09:46 AM

Mackie, could you please post a reference to that article? I've heard bits and pieces about that sort of thing, including Indonesia pressuring Sri Lanka not to accept aid from the Infidel, and I'd like to have something in black and white about it to send to my little network of doubters.

Thanks.

"It is a reflection of a growing movement in the United States"

It is growing, but it's not a movement.. It's a lack of the ability to reason. Absolute denial of facts.. and then no idea how to figure out who's to blame for anything..

The whole argument against the war isn't whether or not Saddam was guilty, it's over *why* he was guilty.. Nothing was his fault.. The United States forced/coerced him to do everything he did.. We caused all the suffering. Some on the anti-war side have begun to say we're just killing them out of enjoyment.. as if the sanctions just didn't inflict enough suffering..

In some ways, I'm glad it's getting as ridiculous as it is.. it makes it harder to justify holding the same ignorant view.. but there's always that growing number that bothers me..

Cubed:

Tab down to the first article on Dhimmi Watch for January 1st and then click on Al-Jazeera in the lead up comment by Mr. Spencer.

This is just another case of the Stockholm syndrome, which is a way of explaining the psychological underpinnings of appeasement. For more than a thousand years it has been demonstrated that the jihad can never be appeased, not with money, not with medicine, not with food, not with paper cranes, not with candlit kumbayah vigils. For more than a thousand years it has been controlled only when the perpetrators have been either killed, imprisoned, or soundly defeated on the battlefield. This is not opinion, it is fact.

It is time for the non-Muslim societies to emerge from the self-inflicted sedation of the 20th century and begin to relearn the lessons of our ancestors who endured more than 13 centuries of murder, mayhem, slavery, and contempt for human life that the doctrine of jihad inflicted on them and now inflicts upon the present generation.

These people are so sad over the death of their relatives... we all would be.

I would think a better tribute to them would be to remember and uphold the reasons and beleifs these servicemen had themselves to join up in the first place

Maybe these lost souls will get caught in a crossfire during their vigil and a few 5.57mm FMJ rounds will take them out of their misery.

What a shame, they´re traitors between us, greetings

OT:

Robert Spencer has for the first time ever been quoted in an article in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper. Has Olivia Ward, the columnist who wrote the article, been reading Jihadwatch?

Woohoo. I'm celebrating!

Here is the article:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1104621011730

Jan. 2, 2005. 01:00 AM

Religious extremism is back
Moral ground is shifting at record speed

Followers are motivated by fear, expert says

OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER

In Britain, a popular play is closed down when Sikhs attack a Birmingham theatre that features a scene of violence in a temple. In the Netherlands, an activist filmmaker is shot and stabbed to death after producing a documentary on the abuse of Muslim women.

Meanwhile, an American president calls his anti-terrorism campaign a "crusade," and declares that "God wants people to be free." And Israeli settlers insist that leaving their land goes against a God-given right.

Religious extremism, once believed a dying phenomenon, is back with a vengeance, symbolized by the shattered and blackened World Trade Centre towers. Videotaped threats by religiously focused militants are as commonplace as they are chilling to millions throughout the world.

In the 21st century, when frontier-shattering genetic discoveries are reported weekly, gay marriage is going mainstream, space exploration is probing new corners of the universe, and entertainment corporations churn out films, music and videos that would once have sparked national scandals, many scholars predicted that religion would fade into the realm of nostalgia.

But as the first decade of the second millennium reaches the halfway point, the reverse is true. In major religions there is a resurgence of fervent faith, sometimes to the point of violence, as intolerance rises along with determination to impose age-old standards of morality.

The flight to the margins, although proportionately small, is powerful. It is influencing the political agenda of governments in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade ago, threatening Western-style democracies and dampening hope for worldwide peace.

"Everywhere there is an explosion of passionate religious movements," says Peter Berger of Boston University, author of The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. "It happens at some periods, like the Crusades. Contrary to expectations, it's a very religious world, and always has been."

Berger and others who study trends in religion call this a time of "fundamentalism," a term once coined to describe an American movement begun by religious intellectuals a century ago. They wrote a doctrine of Protestant "fundamentals" to counter a new liberalism in Christianity, and the word became identified with stern puritanism. But it is increasingly used to identify religious extremism today.

"In most major traditions there has been a resurgence of very aggressive, passionate religious movements, because people are feeling uncertain," Berger says. "And when you're uncertain, you're more aggressive."

Karen Armstrong, a British former nun and leading chronicler of fundamentalism, agrees. Those who embrace it, she says, are mainly motivated by fear in a world in which the moral ground is shifting at record speed.

"Fundamentalists have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious toleration, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of church and state," she writes in The Battle for God.

"Christian fundamentalists reject the discoveries of biology and physics and insist the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound ... Jewish fundamentalists observe their revealed law more stringently than ever before, and Muslim women, repudiating the freedoms of Western women, shroud themselves in veils."

Furthermore, Armstrong says, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian fundamentalists are prepared to fight and kill in the name of religion, and "strive to bring the sacred into the realm of politics and national struggle."

With such dramatic and inflexible beliefs at stake, those who flee to the margins of religion inspire equally strong reactions, ranging from outrage to uncompromising devotion.

"Fundamentalism breeds fanaticism and often leads to terrible violence, injustice and inequality," argues George Dvorsky, president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, in Betterhumans online magazine. "If society can force drug addicts into rehabilitation because they're a danger to themselves and the public, then we should be able to compel religious fundamentalists to undergo treatment as well."

But, says Robert Spencer, the director of U.S.-based Jihad Watch, what repels the moderate and secular attracts others just as strongly.

"The extremists have nowhere to go but up. Moderates don't have religious texts on their side, while radicals make thorough and consistent use of texts. In Islam, young people are very vulnerable to the sayings of the Prophet, just as in Christianity you have evangelicals telling you whether you should behave in a certain way. It's an effective winner of converts."

A strong concern of those who oppose fundamentalism is the polarization of society it inspires.

One of its most extreme forms is the apocalyptic movement that claims millions of converts in the U.S. Inspired by the biblical book of Revelation, its followers believe God will one day impose a catastrophic settlement in the earthly battle between good and evil. The wicked will be destroyed, and a new righteous kingdom established for eternity.

A Newsweek magazine poll found that 40 per cent of American adults believe the present world will end in the Battle of Armageddon, and such beliefs have entered popular culture. Many are also convinced that, as the book is interpreted to decree, the Jews will return to the Holy Land, and the kingdom of Christ will be established on Earth.

Apocalyptic beliefs are found not only in Christianity, but also in Judaism and Islam, and numerous religious sects have adopted them as a justification for war and violence.

Belief in an apocalypse creates unlikely religious bedfellows. Christian fundamentalists are among the strongest supporters of Zionism, which they insist is part of the literal truth of the Bible — that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will lead to Jewish conversion to Christianity, and an inevitable countdown to Armageddon, named for an ancient town in Israel, at the site where the battle is to take place.

The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have fuelled apocalyptic visions even among mainstream believers. The phrase "clash of civilizations," created by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, has become a real fear throughout the world. Huntington's theory, that the next great battle would not be ideological but cultural — a sweeping term that includes religion and philosophy — haunts those who see polarization of the West and Islam as inevitable.

"The tragedy of the last few years," says Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaida: A True Story of Radical Islam, "has been the appearance of two blocs of people, in the West and the Islamic world, both of whom believe erroneously that the other is set on destroying their culture and society."

Islam, with millions of peaceful followers, was especially identified with violent fundamentalism after numerous murderous attacks by the Al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden.

In 1998, bin Laden declared a public jihad on all Americans, although he had no religious credentials to do so. "It's a bit like Lenin issuing a decree in the name of the Russian Orthodox church," observed political economist Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal.

But by using religion as the focal point of his campaign against the U.S., to protest its presence in historically sacred Saudi Arabia, and its links with the Saudi government, bin Laden created a new militant ideological movement that spread worldwide through the Internet and satellite television.

Appealing to the young and disaffected, bin Laden told them that Muslims were being killed, beaten and oppressed in many parts of the world, warning that "if you don't fight you will be punished by God."

The violence of bin Laden's campaign stunned moderate Muslims and faced them with a dilemma: As the non-Muslim world reacted with anger, they were pressed to make a choice between denouncing fellow Muslims at a time when the faith was under attack, or allowing the radicals to seize the initiative.

As a result, a debate on violence is only beginning to emerge within Islam. Meanwhile, the polarization of the Muslim and Western worlds continues.

In the United States, some scholars believe, it has been accelerated by the presidency of George W. Bush, who declared "you're either with us or with the terrorists."

"With the re-election of Bush, religious fundamentalism seems to be in overdrive in its effort to define politics through a reductive and somewhat fanatical moralism," says Henry Giroux of McMaster University, a leading expert on education.

Since Bush came to power, he adds, "a new breed of faith-bearing politicians (has) been elected to the highest level of government, supported by a media largely controlled by conservative corporate interests and a growing evangelical base of Christian fundamentalists."

Other analysts disagree that the politics of the world's most powerful country are being influenced significantly by a minority of the Christian right.

"Religious conservatives are not the centerpiece of this administration's policy," says Mark Shibley, a sociologist at Southern Oregon University, who has devoted his career to studying Christian fundamentalism. "People on the right talk about moral issues, but they have a broader vision, addressing the economy. They may try to slow down social change, and set the agenda through the Supreme Court. But their core values are more about freedom and liberty than religion."

But as Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, points out, "there has never been a government in any era in which religion and politics were as closely entwined as this one. Never has a president and Congress been so dedicated to tearing down the wall of separation between church and state."

Although Christian evangelism has not made enormous gains in the U.S. over the past decade, experts say, it has grown steadily. In Israel, Orthodox Jews have also increased their influence. And in Muslim countries, efforts to make citizens more religious are meeting with new success.

"(Muslim) countries with secular governments are more religious than they were even 20 years ago," notes Michael Dunn, editor of the Middle East Journal. "These movements, instead of being revolutionary, are becoming evolutionary, pushing for incremental change."

What is the appeal of fundamentalism in an age that allows more lifestyle choices than ever before — and why has the most structured kind of religion grown while secular liberalism has fallen out of favour in many parts of the world? The answer, for some analysts, is a flight from modernity, which has unsettled those unready to cope with its challenges.

For the uneasy, modernity goes along with corruption, licence, and the breakdown of society. In Muslim countries it has also been associated with the colonial values of the West.

"Fundamentalists feel they are battling against forces that threaten their most sacred values," Armstrong says.

It is a reflection of a growing movement in the United States ... opposed to the unjust nature of this war," she said.

The only growing movement in the United States is that of the lefty minority trying desperately to convince the majority that they are reality the minority, so the real minority can play the majority.

These people are full of a self serving love, they claim that they love everyone, when in reality they only love themselfs. These people would never go out on a limb for you. These people want the freedom that was paid for with dead soldiers blood. Yet will contribute absolutely nothing to their Country that has given them these precious freedoms they so enjoy. Even if that contribution was just keeping there mouth shut, it would have been the biggest contribution they are capable of making. If their where more people like this around in 1942 we would be speaking Japanese. I would say to these people, put your money where your mouth is and leave the United States and move quickly to some middle east country where their ideas will mingle nicely with yours. I bet they like most smart people will chose to stay in the land of the great Satan. Because somehow the land of the great Satan is still the best place on earth, even for Moslems. go figure!

It was once said

It is better to be silent and be considered a fool, then to open your mouth and remove any doubts.

I've heard bits and pieces about that sort of thing, including Indonesia pressuring Sri Lanka not to accept aid from the Infidel
Posted by: cubed

Cubed

Isn’t Sri Lanka mostly Hindu and Buddhist? If I am mistaken, I stand corrected.

...Furthermore, Armstrong says, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian fundamentalists are prepared to fight and kill in the name of religion, and "strive to bring the sacred into the realm of politics and national struggle."

The only thing I regret about this incredibly idiotic statement is it is not a direct quote by that exceedingly stupid woman. Even though I am sure she said something to this effect, that disqualifies it from my collection of stupid quotes by Karen Armstrong.

Behold:

1) "I usually call myself these days a freelance monotheist. I draw nourishment from all three of the religions of Abraham… And I can not see in essence any one of these three faiths as superior to any of the others."

2) "The notion that Islam "imposes itself by force and violence and has always been against Christianity -- that is not true at all."

3) "People who talk about the need for Islam to have a reformation, ‘as we did’ in the 16th century, show a great ignorance of Islam and the Protestant Reformation. People who think there was something special about the Reformation are ignorant about world history... The heart of Islam beats with the heart of the American people."

4) "Mohammed gave women rights of inheritance and divorce, that we wouldn’t have in the West until the 19th Century."

Source: 1 ) Karen Armstrong, "Now with Bill Moyers" (3/1/02) http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript transcript_armstrong.html 2) Karen Armstrong, "Former nun's concern grows after Madrid," Chicago
Tribune (4/24/04) http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001712.php 3) Karen Armstrong, "Interview," Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Episode 602 (9/13/02) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html 4) Karen Armstrong, "Now with Bill Moyers" (4/9/04) http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript315_full.html

Sheik,

Yeah, that's my impression (that Sri Lanka is largely Hindu and Buddhist), but somewhere I heard that Indonesia exerts a lot of influence there. Don't know why or how. And I also don't know how reliable my source was. But that Indonesia put pressure on Sri Lanka not to accept Infidel aid was definitely something I heard.

Wish I could recall it better.

Thank you, Mackie. I just read it. Good grief! Once again, their priorities are sure screwed up!

"The mindset of Benjamin and her friends can best be summed up by her description in the San Francisco Chronicle of how she felt on her first pilgrimage to Cuba in the early 1980s. Compared to life in the United States, the communist social equality of Cuba "made it seem like I died and went to heaven," Benjamin enthused. Now it appears that Benjamin is trying to recreate it here.

The ties that continue to bind Benjamin, Cagan and the others behind Code Pink and today’s anti-war movement were formed in the early-to-mid 1980s when the still young Marxist-American activists found the cause that first unified them: a communist government in Nicaragua. Using the same sort of incestuous, sprawling coalitions they created to oppose the war in Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan after Sept. 11, they helped aid the Marxist Sandinista regime in its struggle against the American-backed Contras for control of the Nicaraguan government."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6878
----------------------

Comments about Code Pink By Michelle Malkin · August 31, 2004 08:35 AM

One of the leading protest groups in NYC is Code Pink, "a women initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement that seeks positive social change through proactive, creative protest and non-violent direct action." They champion military deserters, support mothers who refuse to get c-sections to save the lives of their children, and hate Hummers.

How else does Code Pink advocate "positive social change?" By praising the likes of Venezuelan thug and Fidel Castro protege, Hugo Chavez. Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin's love letter to Chavez is here.

Benjamin could learn a thing or two about Chavez from her own fellow peace activists. Human Rights Watch has tracked the Chavez regime's threat to press freedom and the murder of opposition leaders here. Militares Democráticos.
covers Chavez's links to al Qaeda and more here. John Perazzo has more background on Code Pink's dictator-loving gals here.

When will the mainstream media expose the lingerie-tossing ladies of Code Pink for what they really are? "Peace activists?" Bull. They're cheerleaders for blood-spattered socialism, waving around their ideological underwear at the feet of Hugo Chavez like groupies at a Wayne Newton concert.

The best possible outcome that i could think of,would be for some of these nutcases to be taken hostage by the jihadists.