UK: jihadists "like Nazis"

The full link to this speech is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179698.stm

David Cameron.

Where shall I start with this bloke? All of you fortunate enough not to be subjected to the British 2 and a half party system need an education:

Cameron is attempting to become the Conservative Leader.

In the past two weeks, he has valiantly told each part of the electorate what they want to hear - with some Orwellian contradictions thrown in.

The Conservatives are New Labour who are the Liberal Democrats - none of them understand Jihad, none of them are capable of looking it in the eye - lest it offend their postmodern, all inclusive doctrine.

For all the tough talk today, Cameron will not take Britain out of the EUrabian Human Rights Convention & will not, should he ever reach Number 10, do anywhere near what is necessary.

Appeasement & eventual Dhimmitude is assured with all the main 2 and a half parties in the UK, along with more Knighthoods for fine upstanding British citizens like Sir Iqbal & Life Peerages for the likes of Lord Ali, & of course, getting Jihad supporters from the MCB to "root out" the "minority of Muslim extremist bad apples in the blissful orchid of Islam UK".

Make no mistake about the near political future of the UK - our Emporer, & the Emporers in waiting, are definately stark, bollock naked.

DAVID CAMERON: "Premature withdrawal - and failure to support the Iraqi authority - would be seen as a surrender to militant Jihadism. Nothing would embolden the terrorists more."

Hugh Fitzgerald apparently feels that premature withdrawal and failure to support the Iraqi authority wouldn't be seen as a surrender to militant Jihadism and would be in the best interests of America and Britain. He has written explicitly that he doesn't feel that the goal of the terrorists in Iraq is to force an American pullout.

And he writes that we should deny Muslims the chance for a liberal education in the West and that we should terminate contact with our many assets in the Muslim world, thereby ending all Western influence there.

Bin Ladin himself would be impressed.

Cornelius - that's not because Hugh thinks like Bin Laden; it's because he understands how Bin Laden and many Muslims think. Big difference.

Interested,

However you want to characterize it, Hugh advocates policy goals that are identical to jihadist aspirations:

1) Retreat from Iraq

2) Terminating the Western presence in the Muslim world

Hugh claims that the terrorists don't really want us to pull out of Iraq...that they prefer us there to satisfy their blood-lust and perhaps to fuel recruitment. I agree with Cameron: a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would energize Jihadism world-wide, giving the terrorists great psychological and material succor.

As for his calls to cut all ties with our many assets in the Muslim world, nothing could be more short-sided. We're never going to influence events in the Muslim world by walking away.

Do we need to influence the Muslim world? If we wash our hands of them totally, how long would it be before the different factions of Islam start killing each other en masse?

"Follow the Gaud - no, worship the slipper" - sorry, slipped into Monty Python mode for a second there....

Withdrawal & disengagement could be very good for the West - personally, after the disgrace & debacle that is the Iraqi Constitution, I don't want one more British Squaddie dying for an Iraq that is rapidly beginning to resemble a mini Iran.

Saving face for President Bush & Princess Blair or any western politician should not be on any agenda.

Racking my feeble brain, I think that only when the enemy is approaching ownership of credible ICBM delivery systems should we re-engage with them - & by re-engage I don't mean by sending in Hans Blix.

Songs of hope and tunes of glory, half-remembered Albion hymns.....
Sorry, I have been playing the Albion Band recently.....

I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to hear more news of deaths from the sandpit either but I think waiting until islamic countries have developed ICBM delivery is cutting it a bit fine. The geographical dawa is the biggest threat. Possibly we could kill two birds with one stone by maintaining a presence in Iraq long enough to co-ordinate reception and settlement into the area, for the purposes of rebuilding the infrastructure etc, all those Moslims who expressed a desire to leave the islamophobia of the UK and elsewhere?
Meanwhile at home we will be developing alternative energy sources so that there is little need for Middle Eastern oil. By this time, so long as we keep up the momentum started here Islam will be perceived as an ideology akin to fascism or communism and not a religion so it's domestic influence will be much diminished.
Halt then reduce the geographical expansion, remove the funding for jihad and re-expansion.

Who was the poster herewho used to end "Our grandchildren will achieve great things"? Was it Ala sux? I forget. Anyway, that's my view.

Albion

Aye, there's the rub. The point of maintaining an American presence in the ME is not to try to influence Islamic ideology or culture -- one would have be a Pollyanna to believe that is possible -- but to slow down or discourage the move by Muslim countries to develop or buy WMDs. Exhibit A: Iraq. Exhibit B: Libya.

MAD may have worked with cold, calculating, communists like the Russians but it won't prevent the mad mullahs and their ilk from pushing the envelope too far in their orgy for global jihad. If the US did not have 150,000 troops next door, Iran would not even be wasting their breath on the taqqiyah with the EU.

I think Bush has done an about-face on this at least twice -- going into Iraq initially to shake things up and to push the front lines of the war back from NYC to the ME. He then read Sharansky's book and became mesmerised with the idea that America might be able to install Western-style democracy in the ME. Now, with the casualties and costs mounting, Cindy Sheehan camped out in his back garden, and the Shia telling America to f'off, Bush has become a realist again -- accepting a shaky hybridised Islamic democracy as long as WMDs are kept out of the picture. The problem of course, is what happens if the Shia in Iraq form an alliance with the Shia in Iran. At that point, everything goes into the toilet.

The reason that most think Bush is a master poker player is because he is making it up as he goes.

From a posting above:

"Hugh Fitzgerald apparently feels that premature withdrawal and failure to support the Iraqi authority wouldn't be seen as a surrender to militant Jihadism..."

The poster echoes the British politician's funny phrase "premature withdrawal." That phrase, with its echo of "premature ejaculation," perhaps reveals the idea that the only manly manliness comes in "staying the course"; none of this coitus interruptus stuff for our geostrategists, no sirree bob.

Calling a recommendation to leave Iraq now in order to allow Islam to be weakened simply through the natural workings its pre-existing internal fissures, as the poster does, a kind of "premature withdrawal" does not make it so, anymore than calling some idiotic idea a "two-state solution" makes it a "solution." And ditto for calling it a "surrender to militant Jihadism" (would that be Islam, by any chance?).
Does this poster actually read what I recommend, and why, or is he fixated on the idea that the Americans must remain deeply entangled with Arabs and Muslims, for reasons I cannot quite fathom?

In a subsequent post, he writes "I agree with Cameron: a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would energize Jihadism world-wide, giving the terrorists great psychological and material succor."

This can be repeated once, or a thousand times. But where is the evidence or the logic? Would the forces in Iraq suddenly come together, with Shi'a and Sunnis sitting down like lambs together? Would not the immediate situation in Iraq require the attention of those "terrorists" (and by the way, "terrorists" are hardly the most important or in the long run most dangerous part of the menace of Islam -- they may, not quite paradoxically, be the ones to wake us all up)? Why does this posteer think that suddenly, with the Americans gone, Islam will emerge united? I don't think Islam will recieve a boost but will be confronted with a permanent fissure right smack in the middle of Iraq -- one that will cause Sunnis and Shi'a to fight (and one hopes that aid and men pour in from outside, to expend themselves fighting one another).

As for American morale, it will receive a boost, both to the military (it is the officers and men who every day see the disconnect between the policy of the Administration and the reality in Iraq, and who have not been impressed with the so-called "Iraqi people" nor their attitude toward Infidels), and to civilians, whose patience for the much longer war of self-defense against the Jihad needs to be husbanded, not squandered in this hallucinatory effort to liken Iraq to America, circa 1787. Last I looked, the Founding Fathers who were building a country, had nothing in common with the Islamic or quasi-Islamic or semidemihemi-Islamic tribal leaders and ethnic leaders and sectarian leaders determined either to dominate, or decamp from, a pseudo-country called "Iraq."

The poster then adds:

"As for his [Hugh's] calls to cut all ties with our many assets in the Muslim world, nothing could be more short-sided. We're never going to influence events in the Muslim world by walking away."

Since when is the intelligent removal of forces, the ending of huge expenditures, and the ending of a steady drain on morale to be called "walking away"? As intelligent people (not the idiotic anti-war and appeasement people) come to understand that there is no logical connection between this etiolated and Islam-based "democracy" and the achievement of what should be American aims in the Muslim countries, that Bush and Rice and company are simply hallucinating, fixated on their original ideas because they haven't the wit, or even the inclination, to study Islam in depth, to figure out why it, and not "terrorism," is the permanent problem, and perhaps most terrifyingly so within the Lands of the Infidels. This is something that has to be learned, at least by some people, in both parties, and by those who presume to comment on Islam in the press, and on television. We cannot continue allowing people to stand up as "experts" those whose entire usefulness is fatally vitiated by a right understanding of Islam. Take, for example, that complete dullard and ignoramus, the very earnest and extremely boring Dennis Ross. His entire life has been spent "negotiating" in something he (and many others) like to call a "peace process." This "peace process" ignores the nature of Jihad, the clearly-defined aims of Islam, and a good deal else. He has never shown, by a single syllable, that he has any idea of the relevance of Islam to the relentless Jihad against Israel. And of course he has company, in the hundreds and thousands, of those who have been spouting off about Israel, the Arabs, lovely law-abiding and hard-working Muslim immigrants who form the "vast and overwhelming" majority of Muslims everywhere, and could not possibly represent a permanent threat to the wellbeing of Infidels everywhere.

The poster simply cannot believe that one could conceivably, by leaving Iraq, accomplish through a kind of inaction -- malign neglect -- exactly what the Administration should be wishing to accomplish, but hasn't the wit to articulate. That is, we can divide, demoralize, and throw into disarray the Muslims, with the two most malevolent, powerful, and dangerous enemies of non-Muslims everywhere, Saudi Arabia and Iran, supporting through proxies this Sunni-Shi'a War. And a free Kurdistan, raising the whole issue of the rights of non-Arab Muslims, and of Arab suporemacist attitudes toward those non-Arab Muislims, will be brought permanently to the consciousness of both Infidels and perhaps more importantly, non-Arab Muslims.

The poster never once addresses these things. He simply misstates, again and again, my position: "premature withdrawal," "surrender to militant Jihadism," blah blah blah.

I don't choose to join the cheerleaders for what is not only an idiotic policy, but is now leading some to make idiotic comparisons between the primitives in Baghdad and the most intelligent group of practical political thinkers ever in one place assembled -- the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, at the Constitutional Convention.

If there is someone in Baghdad who reminds you of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, who were in attendance, or of those who, while they did not attend, were among the tutelary spirits (Thomas Jefferson), please let us know. And if those inifluenced by Islam, whether "moderate" or "immoderate," and all the attitudes that Islam naturally gives rise to, share anything with those who had the English Common Law (i.e., Bracton, Coke, and centuries of slow development of that Common Law -- of contract law (the security and growing ease with which goods and services might be exchanged), of property law (the possibilities for the alienation of land, , and the development of instruments to make investment of capital, shared by many, more possible), of the rights of the individual (see the First Amendment, which simply made explicit what many thought was implicit already in the Constitution as unamended).

And tell me, please, who in the young Republic reminds us of Moqtada al-Sadr, or Zarqawi, or ten thousand hate-spewing clerics we might name, if only we could tell them apart?

The hallucination of this Adminstration about Islam and the nature of Iraq is bad enough. Yet Bush and others have now outdone themselves. They have shown that not only do they refuse, as a matter of obtinate pride and stupidity, to reconsider their assumptions, and to undo their ignorance about Islam, but they have done something worse. Those who have likened the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to what is going on in Baghdad have made an analogy that should never have been made. It reveals the failure to understand, and therefore to appreciate, the genius of the Founding Fathers, and the legacy which, by degrees, we are squandering in every way.

I'm with Granny Weatherwax (and Mr. Cameron) on this.

Iraq needs to be stabilized and all jihadists there need to be eliminated.

Withdrawal before Babylon is on its feet- and governing itself- would be foolhardy.

Even if the place is half-Sharia poisoned, it will be a minor victory if the jihadists still oppose it.

But would be a major defeat if we simply left so that the global Islamic Imperialists could overthrow it.

Or even disingenuously crow that they "drove us out".

Better a lousy anti-jihadist regime in Iraq than any pro-jihadist one -EVER.

But the coalition tacticians need to take off the pussyfoot gloves and hit the Syrian border facilities and Iranian IED suppliers HARD. From the air. And with drone rockets. And cruise missiles.

Driving around and being blown-up daily isn't the swiftest strategy on record.

Fire some Army top brass and get in a few people who have read Patton.

And Churchill.

And Mao.

(And maybe who have slogged through the Koran and Hadiths once or twice, too.)

"... a willingness to give ground and avoid confrontation was seen as weakness"

This is a characteristic of fascism, and is also a characteristic of Islam.

The similarities between Islam and fascism are many and striking. The subject deserves to be addressed fully in all its implications (perhaps this has been already done).

The psychologist Erich Fromm who escaped from Nazi Germany before World War II has many times described the fascist mindset - even to addressing the question of suicide for the cause. His words make chilling reading for anyone with doubts about Islam in the modern world.

His work Escape from Freedom contains a chapter "Psychology of Nazism"
which is hugely illuminating when read with Islam in mind.

I've been away on a well deserved vacation and return to see that the furthest reaches of the bigoted bell curve are still here hammering away with nonesense.

"Islamist extremists 'like Nazis'" is a quote I can agree with, but then many of you mindlessly go to the next step by lumping all Muslims in to the same extremist boat. This = Naziism. Oh, the irony.

"Islam will be perceived as an ideology akin to fascism or communism and not a religion so it's domestic influence will be much diminished."

Big Snore: "Fire some Army top brass and get in a few people who have read Patton [And maybe who have slogged through the Koran and Hadiths once or twice, too]"

King: You sound like as good of a volunteer as any. Instead of sitting on it, why not get your ass over to Iraq to rid the world of Islam, Snore? You make post after senseless post, solve nothing, and offer all sorts of "solutions." There realy solution for you is to enlist and go to Iraq since you support it so much. Go!

Jen: "The similarities between Islam and fascism are many and striking."

King: The similarities bewtween Naziism and your broad statement against all of Islam is equally as striking, Jen. Nazis blamed all Jews for the troubles of 1920's Germany. All Jews, Jen. You blame all of Islam and all Muslims for the problems militant extremists are causing. Separate the extremists and criminals from the millions of peaceful Muslims and rephrase your bigoted statement.

Actually I see it like Hugh, though I think we need to set up the Iraqi army to a degree that it can hack it and reduce the Jihadists a bit more before leaving. I also want to see the Kurds well armed.

Sadly anyone showing any leanings towards freedom or democracy will be intimidated or silenced.

King:

In spite of my better instincts, I'll reply to you:

You put words into my mouth - Why don't you just stick to what I really said?

I stand by my statement. Read Fromm's work and then you may be able to speak more intelligently. I did not "blame" Islam for anything - I said there are similarities between Islam and Nazism. I shall now specifically name a few:

- authoritarianism
- refuge from alienation
- annihilation of the individual self
- proclamation of self-sacrifice as the highest virtue
- hatred against racial and political minorities
- craving for conquest and domination
- exaltation of their own kind

Each of these, and many more points, can easily be backed up by references to history, the Qur'an, and present events.

Jen: "Why don't you just stick to what I really said?"

King: OK, Let's!

You said: "there are similarities between Islam and Nazism" and then you go on to regurgitate a list.

King: What you completely and utterly fail to acknowledge, Jen, (presumably in spite of your better instincts) is that your list is consistent with EVERY major religion if and when it is practiced in an extreme fashion. Christianity has shown us this over and over again. Ignoring this as you chose to do makes you intellectually dishonest and a bigot.

Thank you, Mr Cameron. At least someone from the dhimmi establishment of the UK realizes — albeit partially — what we're up against it. I might not agree with you on every single point of your statement, but the very fact that radical Muslims get called by their real name is inspiring.

Meanwhile, as early as during my first days of studying Islam, I noticed an interesting pattern emerging. Whatever Muslims accuse others of doing, there is a great likelihood they're doing it themselves and on a much greater scale. Arabs accuse Israel of occupying the Palestinian land. Well — hello there — Egypt and Jordan have been doing exactly the same for many years. They accuse critics of Islam of spewing bigotry and hatred — and then, there are weekly PA sermons in which the state-fundeds sheikh publicly makes a gazillion of racist statements.

And now this — how many times have they called the Jews "Ziono-Nazis"? Now even the observes from the PC establishment begin to realize that radical Islamists, with their mindless submission to their Higher Being, with their fanatical devotion to their cause, with their hatred of Jews and the enlightenment, with their book-burning, with their confident reliance on appeasement, and with their utter disrespect for all other cultures, are in every possible way similar to the Nazis.

I only hope more people in the Houses of Parliament would realize what the brilliant Brigitte Gabriel has so succinctly put: "What starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews."

-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org

"Now even the observes from the PC establishment begin to realize that radical Islamists..."

King: I do not think anyone would argue that radical Islamists are a threat to peace and the welfare of the world. I think its a widely accepted premise that radical, militant, extremists plague all Muslims and the world for that matter. This is why the media are carfeul to call terrorists "RADICALS" as to separate them from the rest of their peaceful bretheren. What I take issue with is the blaming of the entire religion of Islam for the behaviors of these criminals. An overwhelming majority of Muslims reject and despise radical extremists. These are the people who need a microphone right now - not people who come on this website to purvey their equally intolerant hate against all of Islam.

Mr Spoon rises from vacation.

Actually in Yahoo its possible for an individual to block seeing comments from another poster, I wonder if its possible on the comments section of a blog? As I would like to block Kin Spoon as I find his Nazi insults extremely offensive.

"I've been away on a well deserved vacation
and return"
Translation... I've escaped the asylum.

"the furthest reaches of the bigoted bell curve"
Translation...The enlightened ones.

"...with nonesense".
Translation... I'm a PC multiculturalist liberal. Duh,I don't get it.

Welcome back King Fool, we didn't miss you though. Actually we didn't realize you were even gone.

"...These are the people who need a microphone right now"

The microphone is on KF and we are just hearing background clatter. Where are the millions of muslims marching in the streets in the west rejecting these extremists and demanding they be excommunicated from their religion? Where are the reports of worshippers reporting their imans to authorities for inciting hatred and exthorting jihad? Not happening is it! This is the reason that all of Islam is being scrutinized at the moment and until it does the scrutiny and mistrust of this religion should rightfully continue.

"...your list is consistent with EVERY major religion if and when it is practiced in an extreme fashion".

For the hundreth time now KF, yes we know all major religions have this capacity, but it is ISLAM that is the only one doing it today.

"Ignoring this as you chose to do makes you intellectually dishonest and a bigot."

King Fool, you are the one to have shown yourself to be dishonest. Over and over again.
But I admit your not a bigot, just a bit idiotic.

Daffersd
The spade is rattled at no longer being perceived as a gardening implement.

King said: "An overwhelming majority of Muslims reject and despise radical extremists. These are the people who need a microphone right now - not people who come on this website to purvey their equally intolerant hate against all of Islam."

OK, KT - a perfect job for you! Since the Internet is an egalitarian medium, I'm surprised that we haven't seen more anti-Jihad sites, but you can do the job easily. Provide that microphone - set up a web site - call it "JihadWatchWatch" - or maybe, "NoJihad" - I really would like to see the postings when they pour in from all over.

If they "need a microphone" - what's stopping them?

King: You sound like as good of a volunteer as any. Instead of sitting on it, why not get your ass over to Iraq to rid the world of Islam, Snore? You make post after senseless post, solve nothing, and offer all sorts of "solutions." There realy solution for you is to enlist and go to Iraq since you support it so much. Go!
Typical moonbat entreaty
How about King ____ taking a trip over to just about any muslim country and loving up some of those wonderful people...see how long you would keep your head. There are some grizzly bears in Wyoming that need love too, KT.

I agree with what Mr. Cameron. The Jihadis are like Nazis. Its about time they were exposed. I have to tell the people here that I am glad with the recent developments here in the UK. The recent measures undertaken by the Gov. are positive steps and I would encourage more. I really enjoyed the Panoroma program the other day, was very informative. The MCB needs to do more and essentially, sort it ooouuut. There are many, many Muslims that are fed up with extremists and how they were 'protected' by the authorities, at least now, progress is being made. I will support these measures.

Welcome back KingTolerance!!!

Hope you enjoyed your holiday, hope you’re feeling relaxed and refreshed.

I really enjoyed reading your posts, you are very decisive and make everything clear. When one is reading some of the posts here, one realises the evil that is being encouraged, well, posts like yours put them into perspective and it becomes clear that they are not really serious. I mean, come on, no one can be that silly, right?

"Actually in Yahoo its possible for an individual to block seeing comments from another poster, I wonder if its possible on the comments section of a blog? As I would like to block Kin Spoon as I find his Nazi insults extremely offensive."

Funny.

You are not in touch with reality my beloved Daffodil.

Rather like White supremacy, doh!!!

"What I take issue with is the blaming of the entire religion of Islam for the behaviors of these criminals. An overwhelming majority of Muslims reject and despise radical extremists. These are the people who need a microphone right now - not people who come on this website to purvey their equally intolerant hate against all of Islam. "

King Tolerance: The reason why we blame the whole of Islam for the "behaviors of these criminals" should be obvious to all. Alas, it is not.

Islam is both a religion and political system all wrapped up into one. Followers of the religion understand no secularism; indeed, the concept is alien to them. Hence, they understand no separation of mosque and state.

The ideology underlying Islam is one which takes for granted its own supremacy. The 'religion' is Arabo-centric, Mekkah-centric, if you will. This is true for ALL Muslims, the fanatics and moderates alike.

Moderate Muslims are generally Muslims who have yet to find the 'strength and wherewithal' within themselves to follow closely the tenets of their faith. This does not mean that they never will. Indeed, many of them do at a later stage in their lives (often after they have sown their wild oats)!

When people are young, they tend to be idealistic firebrands; hence the many young followers of Al-Qaïda. (Very much as communism used to appeal to our young people in the recent past.) As people age and mature, they tend to become more conservative. In terms of Muslims, this generally means that they become more and more religious, and follow Islam more closely.

How are we to recognise and ensure that today's moderate doesn't become tomorrow's firebrand or extreme conservative? It is virtually impossible.

I think it is probably true to say that we all recognise that there are many moderate Muslims in the world. I think we all recognise, too, that there many nice people amongst them. Indeed, I shall stick my neck out here and say that there were probably some 'nice' Nazis living in Germany during the '30's and '40's, too. But this does not detract from the fact that Nazism was a very pernicious ideology. By the same token, the fact that there are Muslims who are moderate does not detract from the fact that the ideology underlying Islam is pernicious in the extreme!

We need to ask ourselves the following question: Are moderate Muslims good because of, or in spite of, that religion and ideology?

We hear much nonsense spoken by non-Muslims such as Bush and Blair, and many, many more, that Islam is a religion of love and peace. Do we hear this from Muslims themselves? If not, why not?

King Tolerance: The fact remains that these weird and wonderful statements are being uttered by Westerners who, by and large, understand diddly about Islam and the jihadist movement. How many so-called moderate Muslims have you heard denouncing the atrocities their Muslim brothers have committed in their religion's name? Sadly, very, very few. There is a reason for this: It is that Muslims will not go against their Muslim brethren. Those brethren are owed an allegiance which few Westerners understand. And that allegiance is owed to their brethren regardless of the gravity of the atrocities committed in their religion's name. Moreover, the ultimate goal of Islam is to triumph, triumph big time and world-wide. It's what the liberals always seem conveniently to forget.

The fact remains that politicians of yesteryear have done the West a great disservice: the disservice of allowing millions of people into the West that have no intention of ever assimilating, and no intention of giving up their jihadist ideology. If only those politicians had done their homework! Not for Muslims a reformation. No! They'd prefer to reform their host countries to their backward, unenlightened way of living. And this is the process we are seeing unfold before our very eyes! Liberals are just letting it happen!

"...they were 'protected' by the authorities"
Posted by a MID (mulim in denial)

yeah IA786, that's the neatest aspect of the whole Islamic evangelical conspiracy to conqueror the democracies of the west. Kind of reminds me of a scene in the movie Independance Day where that guy realizes "they're using our own satelites against us". Well in this version of the movie our (legal)aliens are using the democratic tools of our society to try and destroy us. Pretty clever and cunning you must agree. Let's hope that as in the original movie we can upload a virus into the mothership and destroy those who seek our destruction.

""...they were 'protected' by the authorities"
Posted by a MID (mulim in denial)

yeah IA786, that's the neatest aspect of the whole Islamic evangelical conspiracy to conqueror the democracies of the west. Kind of reminds me of a scene in the movie Independance Day where that guy realizes "they're using our own satelites against us". Well in this version of the movie our (legal)aliens are using the democratic tools of our society to try and destroy us. Pretty clever and cunning you must agree. Let's hope that as in the original movie we can upload a virus into the mothership and destroy those who seek our destruction."

Huh?!?!?...........

Come again.........

Playing ignorant heh?? Good boy. Can you roll over also??

HUGH: "The poster echoes the British politician's funny phrase "premature withdrawal." That phrase, with its echo of "premature ejaculation," perhaps reveals the idea that the only manly manliness comes in "staying the course"; none of this coitus interruptus stuff for our geostrategists, no sirree bob."

My friend, you're beginning to sound earily similar to Edward Said in his bizarre critique of Benard Lewis, with references to supposed subliminal sexual overtones in Lewis' discriptive analysis of Muslim society. I believe Lewis' response was "if you believe that, you can believe anything." (see Ibn Warraq'a essay 'Edward Said and the Saidists')

HUGH: "Would the forces in Iraq suddenly come together, with Shi'a and Sunnis sitting down like lambs together?...Why does this posteer think that suddenly, with the Americans gone, Islam will emerge united? I don't think Islam will recieve a boost but will be confronted with a permanent fissure right smack in the middle of Iraq -- one that will cause Sunnis and Shi'a to fight (and one hopes that aid and men pour in from outside, to expend themselves fighting one another)."

I never suggested for a minute in any of my writings that Islam will emerge united after an American withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, I've written over and over that the bloodletting will be extensive, that Iranian intervention will fill the vaccuum created by US departure and insure a Shiite ascendency in relatively short order. The emerging regime will become a surrogate for Iran (much like Lebanon in the past), using its territory to wage aggressive jihad against the West while Iran maintains culpable deniability.

It is you Hugh who seems to hang on this fantasy that an American withdrawal will leave Iraq forver mired in a Shiite-Sunni conflict that will dissipate all the energies of the Muslim world and leave the rest of us better off. As you folks can readily see, Hugh and I differ sharply over the future of Iraq pending American withdrawal.

HUGH: "The poster simply cannot believe that one could conceivably, by leaving Iraq, accomplish through a kind of inaction -- malign neglect -- exactly what the Administration should be wishing to accomplish, but hasn't the wit to articulate. That is, we can divide, demoralize, and throw into disarray the Muslims, with the two most malevolent, powerful, and dangerous enemies of non-Muslims everywhere, Saudi Arabia and Iran, supporting through proxies this Sunni-Shi'a War.

Again, Hugh apparently is incapable of seeing beyond the immediate...that instead of interminable civil war, one faction (the Shiite majority with Iranian help) is likely to triumph over the other.

HUGH: "And a free Kurdistan, raising the whole issue of the rights of non-Arab Muslims, and of Arab suporemacist attitudes toward those non-Arab Muislims, will be brought permanently to the consciousness of both Infidels and perhaps more importantly, non-Arab Muslims."

Here, Hugh's vision is so far divorced from reality that it's truly mind boggling. How are the Iraqi Kurds to attain their freedom when every actor in the region - the Arab Iraqis - Sunni and Shia alike, the Turks, the Iranians and the Syrians are all OPPOSED to a "free Kurdistan"? The American presence in the region is the one guarantuer that the Kurds won't be subsumed. But the American presence in the region is precisely what Hugh wants to end.

HUGH: "The poster never once addresses these things. He simply misstates, again and again, my position: "premature withdrawal," "surrender to militant Jihadism," blah blah blah."

I've addressed these issues repeatedly in my comments over the last two weeks. May I remind everybody of Afghanistan...where the US walked away from the mujahadeen in disgust after failing to halt their fratricidal bloodletting in 1992. In the end, the Taliban emerged victorious and Bin Ladin brought jihad to the heart of America. Hugh seems to think if we just leave the Muslim world to its own devices, it will consume itself in fratricide. I believe that whatever fratricide occurs will be short-lived and end - as it did in Afghanistan and as it will in Iraq should we leave, with the triumph of the most fanatically violent elements.

An Iraq that has Democratic institutions - however imperfect - is infinitely preferable to an Iraq ruled by a fanatical clique.

But apparently not to Hugh.

"Playing ignorant heh?? Good boy. Can you roll over also??"

Crusader, What the hell are you talking about?!?!?

"that's the neatest aspect of the whole Islamic evangelical conspiracy to conqueror the democracies of the west. Kind of reminds me of a scene in the movie Independance Day where that guy realizes "they're using our own satelites against us"."

I seem to have missed something, who is the global leader for the Muslims that has instructed us to destroy the West, my Imam has been leading my down the wrong path. My old man has it all wrong, we need to destroy the West!!! Is that what you are trying to say? Hey Crusader, why don't you start your own movement, like your friend Bakri, who was kicked out, these Wahbists are abit short and need your help. What do you say?

The Whabbists are the evangelical Islamists I was referring to. Sorry, I thought you had the deductive reasoning capacity to figure that one out. At any rate, it's good to hear you don't run with that crowd.

Cornelius,
I'm kind of leaning on your side of this interesting debate you and Hugh are having. But I'm not so sure a civil war in Iraq will be over as quickly as you suggest. There is just as short a Saudi supply line to the Iraqi Sunnis as there is an Iranian supply line to the Iraqi Shias. And one shouldn't be fooled by the population differences in the region either.

Also, Hugh makes a sound arguement for a free Kurdistan. Opposed from all sides by eternal enemies and can't happen you say. Gee that sounds like a tiny Israel to me.
With US economic and military support Kurdistan could become a reality, a reality that should have happened over 80 years ago but it must have been in the too hard basket at the time. Well if it is ever going to happen, the time is now.

And one more point in favor of Hugh's position. If the withdrawl doesn't work out as he envisions and ends in the scenario you are suggesting, well, we just invade again and take out the incumbent Shia regime and start over. Nation building isn't a perfected science yet(and never will be).

But all things considered, staying the course until the Iraqis are ready to handle their own security is probably the moral thing to do. I personally don't care what happens after that. We would have tried our best and gave them a chance for freedom. If they blow it, at least our conscience will be clear.

If jihadists ”like Nazis” then, certainly, Kink T. ”like Lord Haw Haw”, (or Quisling)

Many would like to carry the analogy a step further and suggest: Mecca “like Hiroshima”, but I would be satisfied with trying Kink T. for treason “like Lord Haw Haw”.

And what about Ia345?
Well, kick him out to moslemistan - "like a dog".

Poster above:

"Iranian intervention will fill the vaccuum created by US departure and insure a Shiite ascendency [sic] in relatively short order."

Why will a Shiite ascendancy be established in "relatively short order"? And what does that mean -- a few months, a few years, the 8 years during which the Iran-Iraq War was fought?

Zarqawi and company preach that the Shi'a are Infidels. The Sunnis, who would have nothing to lose, and who are better versed, through the last few decades of experience, as organized soldiers, than the Shi'a militia, and who would be funded by the Saudis and other Gulf Sunnis who would have the most -- a very great deal -- to lose if there were an expanded Shi'a power right on the Gulf, and dominating its mouth, will not want for money and materiel, just as they did not during the Iran-Iraq War.

The Iran-Iraq war went on for eight years. Why should one expect that the Iranians, many of whom are now disenchanted with the regime, but who fought, in any case, to defend "Persian" Iran from "Arab" Iraq (both sides appealed to that history), would suddenly be more powerful? And would not the Sunnis outside supply this time not only money and weapons, but men as well? Don't Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Jordan, and Egypt have a stake in limiting the power of Shi'a, and especially an Iran-Iraq power that would permanently threaten them? Why should it be assumed that the Shi'a will win -- they are at the moment requiring the full attention of the most powerful military power in the world, to protect them from Sunnis?

And even if one were to agree with your argument that a Shi'a power, and Shi'a victory is likely, would that not be another argument in favor of leaving now? For the longer we remain, the more largely Shi'a troops we train -- it is the Shi'a and the Kurds, not Sunnis, who make up 90% or more of the "Iraqi" army and police forces that are being trained. The longer we stay, the more powerful those forces will become. The sooner we leave, the more equal the fight. And don't we want that fight to be as equal, and therefore as long-lasting, as possible? And don't we also hope that the Sunni discrimination, persecution, and attakcs on various communities of Shi'a (the Hazara) in Afghanistan, or the Shi'a in Pakistan, or the Shi'a in Hasa (eastern Saudi Arabia), are not unaffected? And what about Lebanon, where the greatest menace to Infidels, and to the Christians of Lebanon in particular, is the Shi'a Hezbollah, which might have some of its supporters doing all sorts of things -- attacking and being attacked by Sunnis locally, or attempting to join Shi'a brothers in Iraq. Anything and everything is possible. No one can say that this or that side will win, or that a "win" would be permanent.

There will never be Sunni acceptance of a giant Shi'a power that includes parts of formerly Sunni-ruled Iraq. This will not be accepted, any more than Israel is acceptable, whatever its size. It is one thing for the "Persians" to have their Shi'a Islam, which the Wahhabi Muslims (and Zarqawi and his followers) regard as Infidel beliefs. And other Sunnis, while not going that far, may be said to regard the Shi'a not as "Unbelievers" but with the same kind of hatred that prompted the wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe.

There is no evidence that such a conflict would end soon, or indeed, end ever. The removal of the despotic mass-murderer, Saddam Hussein, alreeady guarantees a civil war -- sooner or later. We should want it sooner. To ensure that neither side has it easy, if you believe the poster above (so very confident of Shi'a victory) the Americans should leave promptly, so as not to create, too effective a fighting force among the majority Shi'a. On the other hand, if you think the Sunnis will win in a walk, you can always help supply the Shi'a, or leave some equipment behind for the "government of Iraq." I would think it best not to leave a jeep or a rifle behind, and let the two sides get supplied by their allies in countries next door.

"My friend, you're beginning to sound earily similar to Edward Said in his bizarre critique of Benard Lewis.."

No I'm not. Said was a hysteric, attempting to indict Lewis for a standard lexicographic explanation of the word "thawra." I was largely having fun with words, and it would be sill to overlook the fun to be had with the phrase "premature withdrawal." Nonetheless, I there is something that goes beyond the comical in the use of this phrase, given that those who argue that Americans should remain in Iraq often do so (unlike Said's ridiculous charge, this is not the figment of a perfervid imagination) on the basis of some appeal to putative manliness and bravery. When we are told that we must "stay the course" and must not "cut and run" this is certainly a hint at something beyond policy, but at battlefield bravery, and cowardice, adn all the things metonymically associated with each. As for the "My friend" phrase -- that I find condescending, and as a rhetorical unacceptable.

"How are the Iraqi Kurds to attain their freedom when every actor in the region - the Arab Iraqis - Sunni and Shia alike, the Turks, the Iranians and the Syrians are all OPPOSED to a "free Kurdistan"? The American presence in the region is the one guarantuer that the Kurds won't be subsumed..."

But if American soldiers leave Iraq, that does not mean they leave the entire area. It does not mean that they cannot supply the Kurds, favor the Kurds, protect the Kurds from the Turks by reading Turkey the riot act, and carefully explaining that the Americans will guarantee that the Kurds make no demands on what is now Turkish territory (Iran and Syria are quite a different matter), as long as the Turks do not try to smother the nascent Kurdish babe in the political cradle. The Kurds deserve independence. The Kurds want independence -- or 98% of them do, as the referendum held the same day as the January elections in Iraq showed. They have been so helpful to the Americans that the only place in the whole damn country where American soldiers have been sent for R & R are to certain places in Kurdistan (as a relative of mine discovered). American soldiers took to speaking of the "Kurds and the Iraqis" -- so clear was the distinction in their mind, and so different the reaction of the non-Arab, and largely trustworthy Kurds, to the Americans. The only exception are the Mullah Krekar Ansar al-Islam sort -- the Kurds who feel not their Kurdishness, but their devotion to Islam and pan-Islamic causes, above all.

From 1991 to 2003 Kurdistan developed, not into something wonderful, but something not awful, under the benign protection of the United States airforce. Saddam Hussein could not have his planes or helicopters enter the sky over Kurdistan. The same kind of aid, and equipment, could give the Kurds a fighting chance. That is all they want, and very likely all they need -- a fighting chance. And if the Arabs are at each others' throats in the meantime -- all the better for the Kurds.

Daffersd: "[As]I would like to block Kin Spoon as I find his Nazi insults extremely offensive."

King: Nice to see your fortitude for debate is as strong as your fortitude for free speech. Feel free to ignore me yourself without relying on technology. Now where was I....

Crusader: "Welcome back King Fool, we didn't miss you though. Actually we didn't realize you were even gone."

King: Didn't miss me? Then why did I only make two posts and you were all over them like stink on a monkey?

Crusader: "The microphone is on KF and we are just hearing background clatter."

King: Yes, that "clatter" is the sound of people, like me and IA, trying to engage in meaningful debate and exchange of ideas. The "clatter" is also the rhetoric and far right nonesense you subscribe to.

Crusader: "For the hundreth time now KF, yes we know all major religions have this capacity, but it is ISLAM that is the only one doing it today."

King: For the THOUSANDTH time, radicals are doing this today, not all Muslims. You are now choosing to ignore this point and choosing to be a bigot. That's too bad.

Mark: "But this does not detract from the fact that Nazism was a very pernicious ideology."

King: What's pernicious here, Mark, is those who concoct an ideology under the guise of religion. Once again (for the hundreht time since Crusader is counting) all religions are capable of producing radical ideations from their scripture and acting on their twisted views. History has shown us this and by ignoring this history, you build an argument based on half truths. In addition, blaming an entire religion for the twisted behaviors of a distinc minority within its ranks despite the fact that most of its followers are kind, gentle, peaceful human beings is tantamount to Naziism. I do not how else to make this point more clear to you.

Blaming Liberals and politicians of "yesteryear" in addition to blaming Muslims makes you seem like a fella who may have good intentions but nothing but blame to go around. So I ask - what is YOUR solution? Solve the problem you see before you...

Carolyn2: "How about King ____ taking a trip over to just about any muslim country and loving up some of those wonderful people...see how long you would keep your head. There are some grizzly bears in Wyoming that need love too, KT."

King: Hmmm. Comparing my pragmatism to a situation I see to giving love to grizzly bears in Wyoming shows me all I need to know about your ability to reason. I also like your choice of "moonbat". It drives your bigoted perspective right home! Now if you'll excuse me, I have other more serious replies to make...

IA: "Welcome back KingTolerance!!! Hope you enjoyed your holiday, hope you’re feeling relaxed and refreshed."

King: Thanks, mate. I also appreciate your kind words. Being that a majority of the posts here are about as right wing myopic as you can get, it is no wonder that a down the middle perspective is a lightening rod for insult and ad hominem. I find it interesting that each and every time you or I ask for a well written solution from one of these "debaters" we end up seeing things like coffee filters and farts or hugging grizzly bears in Wyoming.

Enjoying the debate but wish the background noise from feeding the trolls would subside.

He's baaaaack. The one I thought banned as I lurked here observing. He, the one with the oxymoronic name. Since I believe he is the one whom singely-handedly is responsible for at least half of the comment controversy. Brazenly sniping as usual he appears and not helping us to formulate a refutation of the danger of Islam and all that ideology entails. Instead he would rather engage in personal attacks, raising the ire of the posters. Downgrading the discourse here thereby. Such a shame because I perceive a brilliant intellect and a linguistic acuity in him, hampered by an extreme bitterness.
Alas, of him I imagine, of a classic stereotype, a man sitting alone in front of a computer. Raised in a home where atheist parents inculcate their own embitterment of what happened in their own lives. In the '60's,at college, his own indoctrination in leftist type ideology and feigned liberal tolerance is completed and he never begins to acquire wisdom leading to a grace which would cause him to get along with those around him
He pursues a law degree and career which he makes him a tidy sum but he never rises above a relatively mediocre status because he causes everyone to detest him with his lack of tact and mercy.
He is alone because his bitterness leads to marriage failure. He leaves a legacy of children with failed lives, filled with a hedonistic swill of alcohol, drugs, and sexual pursuit. With their own failed relationships and destruction of the lives around them.
Yet he'd love to continue that pharisaical pursuit of law to the letter that continues a tradition in this world. But that is always enumerated here with a lack of tact and grace in his posts. As a result we all may have no more comments to respond to, learn from, and grow from. I think it is a pity because his brilliance is wasted. His language skills are used to tear down. His quick insight causes dissension and keeps us from Robert Spencer's intent for there to be discussion and discourse here in the comments. It is by persuasion instead of bellicosity that we need to move forward. I regret to see such of someone who could be a real leader here. I hate to see such, a man who has such an unbridled intemperence, because his gifts, comported properly would have me want to number him a friend.

"Solve the problem you see before you".

Solve the problem: Yeah, well, first it has to be said that had I been in control, we wouldn't have had the problem to solve in the first place! But now we have the problem, I would like to say this...

First, I wouldn't try and bring democracy to the Middle East. That's a complete waste of time: impossible in the first place given the nature of Islam, and in the second place, a complete waste of our soldiers' lives. Far better would it be to use our limited resources effectively, and to the best advantage.

Second, I have to say that I wouldn't have allowed these people into the West in the first place; but now that we have them, we have to deal with the situation before us. Therefore...

I would show zero-tolerance for those espousing anti-Western sentiments. One mistake, and you're outa here!
I would enjoin Muslims to live like we do - in the spirit of 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do', and then if they wish not to do so, I would show them the door.
I would monitor the preaching in their mosques. I would make it thoroughly uncomfortable for them to preach their hatred.
I would pull the troops out of Iraq, and then let an iron veil drop down between them (the Islamic world) and us! By an 'iron veil'. I mean I would chill them out, i.e. I would isolate them economically and politically, and freeze them and starve them of the oxygen they need to survive and thrive!
I would certainly STOP all legal and illegal immigration of Muslims to the West.
I would do EVERYTHING possible to increase the birth rate in Western countries, especially through fiscal measures.
I would show the Muslim world exactly WHO depends on WHOM!
I would certainly not prop up rogue dictators, heads of state, and 'royal' families, especially royal families such as the House of Saud.
If necessary, I would invade their oil fields to bring them under the control of the West.
I would NOT allow myself to be taken in by the false friendship that the House of Saud offers the West!
I would STOP the purchase of our businesses by the Muslim world.
I would greatly accelerate the search for, and development of, alternative energy sources to minimise our dependence on oil.

These measures I would undertake, and many, many more. I would ensure that the West is triumphant!

Hugh-

You have made reference several times (in other posts as well) to information that you have gotten from sources that are in/have been in Iraq. Could you share a synopsis of what these people have told you about their experiences, and their thoughts on the eventual fate of the country?

I for one would be very interested.

King: Hmmm. Comparing my pragmatism to a situation I see to giving love to grizzly bears in Wyoming shows me all I need to know about your ability to reason. I also like your choice of "moonbat". It drives your bigoted perspective right home! Now if you'll excuse me, I have other more serious replies to make...
I say tomatoes, you say...hey how do you say tomatoes in Arabic?

HUGH: "As for the "My friend" phrase -- that I find condescending, and as a rhetorical unacceptable."

No harm meant. This is not personal Hugh. I'm sure if you and I sat down with a couple of six-packs, we'd get along famously.

I think most anyone versed in geo-politics would agree that Iran has the most to gain should the USA walk away from its responsibilities in Iraq. The Sunni Arab world might continue to send fighters and bombers, but no STATE in the region would be willing to challenge the Iranians directly: The Saudis are innately cautious and the House of Saud too tenuous in its own grip on power to embark on such an adventure; Jordan is a non-entity; Syria is an earstwhile ally of Iran, the Shia offshoot Alawites dominating that gov't; Egypt is too far removed geo-graphically.

Turkey is perhaps the one gov't in the region that might challenge Iran over Iraq, but this is unlikely. Unlike the Iranians, the Turks have no natural allies in Iraq besides the small Turkomen community. As long as Iranian support is not too overt (something akin to an actual invasion), the Turks are not likely to become enmeshed. In fact, Iran will be careful to disguise its presence (as it has since Saddam's fall) so as not to inflame Iraqi nationalism. But the support in men and material will be much more extensive than it is today.

Your analogy to the Iran-Iraq war is largely non-applicable. We are talking about a future Iraqi civil war in which the Shiites comprise 60% of the population...not a war between standing armies representing different nation-states. What will be different than today's struggle against the insurgents is that an emerging militant Shia entity governing Iraq with no constraining American influence will conduct a scorched-earth policy in the Sunni heartland. The insurgency will dry up as the refugees stream into Jordan and Syria.

As for the Kurds, you show no appreciation of the political fallout both at home and abroad from US retreat. The US public is not about to be receptive to any new involvement in Iraq after a withdrawal and the resulting carnage that we both agree will result, so any attempt to rescue the Iraqi Kurds from an existential threat is unlikely. Moreover, the Turks will be less likely to attenuate their foreign policy to our own when we have proven to them and the world that we have no staying power in the region....(that goes for the Kuwaitis, the Qataris and others). In other words, "a loss of prestige" is more than about image and machismo; it has strategic repercussions.

I reiterate, an Iraq with Democratic institutions (again, however imperfect) is preferable to an Iraq run by a fanatical clique. The American presence is the best guarantor of the former; a US withdrawal is the quickest route to the latter.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

King Schwanz:

"What I take issue with is the blaming of the entire religion of Islam for the behaviors of these criminals. An overwhelming majority of Muslims reject and despise radical extremists. ...."

Why do you always regurgitate the same crap? Where is the evidence that an 'overwhelming majority' of Mohammedans reject and despise radicals?

KT:
" ... of people, like me and IA, trying to engage in meaningful debate and exchange of ideas..."

Schwanz, you wouldn't know what meaningful debate is if it bit you in the dick!

T-Schwanz, you NEVER made sense in anything other than making weak apologies and deflection for and away from the death-cult of Islam.

Repeat after me:

Islam is a totalitarian ideology based on booty and conquest and has nothing in common with religion or spiritual enlightenment as we know it...

"Solutions?-" Mass-deportations, closing mosques, re-education (for those who truly prove beyond any doubt that they share our values) and capital punishment for all who are found to engage in seditious and terrorist activities.

Would that include you?

Amazing no one on this section realises that THIS type of talk, while protected by the 1st Amendment and Patriot Act, is EXACTLY why a COMMENTS section would be removed. The disagreements are healthy, even in this time of war, but the snide remarks just don't always cut the mustard.....

JW gal,
feeding the trolls causes them to blow up like big helium balloons. Then someone thinks that they can stick a pin in the bloated troll and let all the air out. It's the same as appeasing the jihais and thinking they will go away. What must not happen is the first step of feeding the trolls. If they're ignored, they do go away.

Jen, I've ordered "Escape from Freedom" from Amazon.

I think that the Islamic mindset has been replicated before with Nazism, and after Islam has gone, will no doubt be replicated again.

The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I think Poetess is quite right saying "feeding the trolls causes them to blow up like big helium balloons".

I know it can be fun to slap around that megalomaniac nitwit, but it is obvious that the man is desperate for attention, any attention – even if it is provoked by uttering absolute idiocies. True - he must be very lonely, but the idea behind DW’s is not exactly to provide relief for lonely losers like Kink Troll – remember? As long as we keep on feeding his addiction he won’t attend to its causes.

In a way, it is quite a similar situation with Islam. The more we attempt a dialogue with that moronic, murderous cult the more we contribute to its delusion of grandeur. Let’s give Kink Troll and islam the chance of rehabilitation through denying food to both of them. It can only do them good.

If there are any new readers out there thinking why KT and IA786 draw the ire of infidel posters, well here is one reason why....

Both KT and IA786 approve of child brides and sex with nine year old girls. Their logic? Because Mohammed did such practices.

So no matter how seducing their arguements are, I ask you this..

Would you support/believe someone who approves of sex with children??

Well readers, Muslims who follow Mohammed do! Can someone who approves of such child abuse be trusted? The answer is clearly no!

Con-men always mix in part truth with their lies. Mohammed was no different. If con men don't do this, then no body, including the gullible, would believe them.

The users here should avoid using KingTolerance and me as scapegoats. The controversy surrounding the comments has absolutely nothing to do with us. I don't even post at JW, the controversy is your own fault. I remember Mr. Spencer making it clear that he wouldn't support the nuking of Mecca or mass deportations, I redeemer him deleting the comments f the people here, mine were not deleted.

I enjoyed reading the debate between Hugh and Cornelius, after I read the objections to our posting in this thread I stopped posting, though the subject being discussed had nothing to do with the thread.

Now who are the trolls, I admit I may have posted somethings that were off topic, however I have avoided calling for violence and have tried avoiding insults, now there are members here that throw these about with no second thought.

There are those that go on and on about closing mosques, deportations and executions, are they not trolls? Have they helped this site? Stop trying to make scapegoats out of KingTolerance and me.

The most glaring problem with embroiling the Shia and Sunnis in a prolonged war is the fact that oil prices could spike to $200 a barrel, or more. This would encourage, no require, for economic survival, a rapid shift to other sources of energy and non-petroleum-based products. In the meantime, if a global depression is a risk we are willing to take, and such a switch seems practicable, perhaps chaos in the region is the best course. Should the transformation come to pass, oil leverage would no longer compel our president to feign puppy love with butt-ugly Saudi despots, a great achievement.

Whether the Shia or Sunnis win the war, someone will eventually. This sort of uncertainty is exactly what policy-makers hate. Perhaps for good reason. Where is the U.S. interest in a nuclear Iran's mechanized units poised to take over Saudi oil fields?

One could argue this, and many other scenarios, would require an immediate U.S. military response. As this subject is the withdrawl of U.S. soldiers, with so many unknowns leading to the sudden reinsertion of U.S. soldiers, I'm not convinced uncertainty - however one perceives the situation now - is the better option.

Finally, the timing is suspect. While the Iraqi constitution and upcoming elections may not improve the situation one bit, it seems, well, premature to withdraw now.

I for one thing that Hugh's plan has merit, though I think the timing of withdrawel has to be right. I think the next elections will be interesting, will the Islamic parties lose ground to more secular parties. If they do then perhaps I would stick with it to try to set up the secular government for the long haul, but if not I will pull out. I am hoping that many of the immigrants to the West from Iraq will return.

I have been cheering the growth in oil prices, the higher they go the bigger the push to develop alternative sources, it can only be a good thing.

I have a problem with Iraq in that it prevents us from moving freely against Iran, if it was not for that I would really try to get the country to be secular. Interesting test the next election though.

My issue is with the Muslim population in the West, I used to be of the view that they would secularize over time, but the $ support from Saudi Arabia and the control over the population is such that they are not going to. We have to deport anyone who shows extreme tendencies, if they are home grown then I don't know, but I would close down the extreme mosques and I would choke of Saudi funding and literature.

As the religion is extreme I have little hope that a moderate Islam would appear, in fact I expect the acts of violence to increase as the Muslims point to defensive acts by the UK and others to control the terrorists as being an 'injustice', which means defend yourself against us and we will see that as an act of war. This is already being spelled out by the more extreme elements, while so called moderates are complaining about the destruction of Muslim human rights in the UK, preparing that feeling of injustice for more extreme action.

This is the real test, can our leaders continue with their attempts to control Islam, can we develop a better system to deport them without paying millions in legal costs, will our so called leaders see it through, that is my doubt. I think the population is largely there, even some on the left see Islam as the problem, though many see it as extreme Islam. But even that can be used. Because acts against extremism will cause that feeling of injustice that opens up so many so called moderates to heious acts that further aliante the indigenous population, the wheel is turning there I think.

Hope for the future, well its education, stop Islamic schools at all costs, work on secularizing them, deport the more extreme, stop further immigration. make it attractive for them to leave and difficult to stay.

Use the military option when necessary and dig in for a long war.

Once the oil runs out and if they have not under-mined our socities from the inside we will win, if they manage to grow to take over, say 20% of the population then we may lose.

King and ia786:

Some reading for the two of you, commentary in the [Canadian] National Post, written by Salim Mansour, who is a professor of poli sci at the University of Western Ontario as well as Senior Fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. Simply put, he's saying "It is the religion, stupid." And if you don't want to read the whole thing, at least read the fourth paragraph from the top.

Wanna dismiss him as some kind of Islamophobe too?

Osama's godfathers

Salim Mansur
National Post

August 24, 2005

Nine days after the London bombings of July 7, Tony Blair gave a clear-headed speech about the threat to the West. "What we are confronting here is an evil ideology," he said. "This ideology and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy. Over the past 12 years, al-Qaeda and its associates have attacked 26 countries, killed thousands of people, many of them Muslims. Their cause is not founded on an injustice. It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such it can't be moderated. It can't be remedied. It has to be stood up to."

What Blair did not say, however, is that al-Qaeda's ideology is deeply entrenched in the Muslim tradition and reaches far back, into the earliest years of Islam.

Al-Qaeda's terrorists are a throwback to those Muslims in the first decades of Islam who believed their faith was the purest, while doubting the belief of others around them, and approved of violence as the right way to advance their views of faith and power. They are known as khwarij (meaning those who secede) or Kharijites.

Muslims in general, fundamentalists in particular, hearken back to the founding years of Islam as the perfect age when the Prophet Muhammad and his companions instituted the divine plan on Earth. In this view, what followed was a regression from belief to unbelief. This picture of Islam's early years is a myth that deprives most Muslims of a critical and rational perspective on history.

The reality, as documented by the earliest Arab-Muslim commentators on Islam's founding decades -- from Ibn Ishaq (d. 761) to Al-Tabari (d. 923) -- was one of internecine strife, bloodshed and war. Immediately after the Prophet died in 632, wars were fought to compel Arabs of contemporary Saudi Arabia and Yemen to re-submit to Islam as the only permissible religion of the new empire. Three of the Prophet's first four successors as rulers of the expanding realm of Islam -- Umar, Uthman and Ali -- were murdered as a result of grievances and factional strife. The Prophet's immediate family were the most conspicuous massacre victims in these seventh-century conflicts. The wars of succession left permanent schisms within Islam.

Ever since those early blood-lettings, Muslims have been the primary victims of Muslim violence.

The Kharijites held the view that since a perfect religious and political order had been instituted, anything outside it was impure and corrupting. Any diminution of this pure system of worship and rule, and any compromise with the outside world, reflected a weakening of faith, a commission of sin and a departure into apostasy that had to be fought and annihilated. Consequently, any Muslim who differed from the impossibly rigid Kharijite view of faith and politics was to be hunted down.

Politically and militarily, Kharijites were systematically eliminated by Muslim rulers within their domain in the first century of Islam. But Kharijite ideas persisted, breeding an exclusive, militant and sectarian body of followers outside the mainstream of Muslim belief and practice. The Kharijite view would re-surface through the influence of Ibn Hanbal (780-855), a founder of one of the four legal schools in Sunni Islam, and in the work of Ibn Taimiyya (1263-1328), who in turn was influential in shaping the view of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-87), the founder of the Wahhabi sect that is the dominant school of Islamic thinking in Saudi Arabia.

The Wahhabis are the contemporary version of the Kharijites, and their extreme sectarian views, funded by the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, have permeated much of the Muslim world. Their atavistic thinking was given a modern facade by Syed Qutb (1906-66), an Egyptian thinker revered by Muslim fundamentalists for formulating Islamism as an ideology of power and jihad. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the populist Egyptian dictator, hanged Qutb for his politics, which were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the antecedent group of al-Qaeda and Hamas) in Egypt and the wider Arab world. Later, Qutb's followers were responsible for the killing of Anwar Sadat, Nasser's successor, in October, 1981. Osama bin Laden is only the most recent face of the Wahhabi bigotry that has origins going back to the foundational years of Islam.

The arguments in the West that organized Muslim terrorism associated with al-Qaeda and its global network can be ended through concessions are ignorant and naive. Muslim violence is independent of anything Western democracies might do to accommodate grievances that are mostly rooted in their own dismal failures to meet the modern world's political and economic challenges.

In the pre-modern world, Muslim rulers from the Ummayad dynasty in Damascus, the Abbasid synasty in Baghdad to the Ottoman sultans in Istanbul contained and destroyed Kharijites and their ideological progeny. They knew there could be no toleration of these killers who used religion as an ideological shield.

We should do the same: The modern-day Kharijites need to be eliminated by force, like their predecessors. Eventually, Muslims themselves must confront the mentality that proselytizes for violence in the name of Islam. It is a disease that mutates over time into a variant of fascism. Only through long-term commitment to reform can this disease be cured.

Salim Mansur is Senior Fellow at the Canadian Coalition for Democracies
http://CanadianCoalition.com

© National Post 2005

-30-

Some super postings here, I have learnt many things on this thread alone.

"Once the oil runs out and if they have not under-mined our socities from the inside we will win, if they manage to grow to take over, say 20% of the population then we may lose."

Daffersd,: Sound posting from you as ever.

Do you not think though that a "tipping point" will come with regards to the amount of Muslim voters, say in the UK?

If they do reach 20% of the electorate, won't their true Political desires be open for all to see?

I for one cannot see the English, in particular, standing for the imposition of Sharia in any form, even if it is just for the faithful. English law, though now subserviant to EUrabian Law is still the law of this land. We would change our democracy, change the rules, or even take to the streets in Civil War to stop Muslim influence - hell, any religious influence in our lawmaking & application. Yes, I know, England & its Parliament has historically been about evolution not revolution - but our leaders & the enemy within have relied on that too much. The PC elite have invested heavily in the fact that we are not the sort of people that will bring down & change the system by means of non passive confrontation. All this could change. By degrees, I am seeing it already - greater militancy in little people of England, & I welcome it, even if it is a little disconcerting that our usual reserve is receeding. Maybe thats a good thing - a survival instinct kicking in.

English culture & heritage is undermined here & people are noticing.

How much longer we will put up with being 2nd class in our own land is the question -

How much longer we will tolerate a religion that is increasingly looking like a suicide death cult is another -

I have to agree with thomas - much as my temptation is to continue my one-sided dialogue (since only I am actually doing any critical thinking about the issues) with King Troll and 'Iaiaiaiaia!', trolls probably should be ignored.

Still, temptation is what temptation is. I wonder if, in their utter absence of rational solutions to the issue of radical islam (which, in the eyes of the islamofacists, 'rational islam', since all is justifiable - stonings, murder, war, misogyny - by the Quran, or the hadiths, or the biographies, or the traditions), they might actually be contributing to the debate.

In that: there is no rational debate possible.

Look at 'Iaiaiaiaia!' - constantly painting individuals here as murderers and racists, despite having some quite strong racist views himself. He prattled on for ages about 'white people'. Essentially his only counter-argument to the idea that the West should disengage from islamist nations is that 'JihadWatchers are evil and mean'. No solution. He actually believes the Jews carried out 9/11, for Christ's sake (if I may use a religious exclamation). Can one seriously debate with such a person? A person who challenges debate, then loses, then wanders away? Seriously?

Then there's King Troll, who only rails about how not all muslims are bad, and people here generalize about islam, so 'JihadWatchers is bad' seems to be his only argument too. So many of those practicing islam are not bad - great. Which ones? Why are the bad ones allowed to remain in their communities? When will they stop receiving money, support and propaganda from Wahhabis, or frankly from any sect in islam, back in islamic countries (I offer here Iaiaiaiaia!, who thinks the Jews did 9/11. 'Nuff said.) How can we tell 'good' ones from bad? If muslims ever formed a majority population in any Western country, would they impose sharia, or merely stand by and shake their heads saying "well, we don't support violence, but we're islamic so it doesn't affect us" and off to watch the Blood Libel tapes they got last week from Syria Satellite? Complicity or complacency, either would do.

Sorry, but their arguments don't wash, and I suspect King Troll doesn't either. Robert, could they be banned? They truly offer nothing to the debate, only serving their own mania.

Imam Geoff

Voltaire:

I hope you enjoy Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm.

Although first published in 1941, its findings are still applicable today, across all cultures.

You might also find the chapter "Freedom and Democracy" interesting. Here Fromm discusses the psychology of those who make the ultimate sacrifice for their cause (i.e., in modern terms, the suicide bomber).

Here's an excerpt:

"There are two entirely different types of sacrifice...Death is never sweet, not even if it is suffered for the highest ideal. It remains unspeakably bitter, and still can be the utmost assertion of our individuality. Such sacrifice is fundamentally different from the "sacrifice" which Fascism preaches. There sacrifice is not the highest price man may have to pay to assert his self, but it is an aim in itself. This masochistic sacrifice sees the fulfillment of life in its very negation, the annihilation of the self... It is the perversion of sacrifice as much as suicide is the perversion of life. True sacrifice presupposes an uncompromising wish for spiritual integrity. The sacrifice of those who have lost it only covers up their moral bankruptcy."

I wonder what Fromm would say about the current state of the world, and in particular the threat Islam poses to Western civilization?

One positive aspect that would come of Spencer pulling the plug on the Comments section -- we'd be spared the opining of KingTroll and his pal ia786.

Albion,

"Do you not think though that a "tipping point" will come with regards to the amount of Muslim voters, say in the UK?

If they do reach 20% of the electorate, won't their true Political desires be open for all to see?"

I can't see them having an impact on the voting system, its pretty much tied up for New Labour to win power, and I can not see them infiltrating the Labour party to any real degree. All you have to do is look at the number of voters per seat in Labour areas and voters per seat in the Tory areas to see that, I gave up voting because of that issue.

No the Muslims tend to congregate where they can mix together so that will impar their impact on the political system.

The 2.5 party system will prevent any Muslim party as such gaining power so I do not think that their true political desires will be there for all to see.

They have created a large pressure group, the MCB to push their agenda and it is completely outside of any voting system, their real intent can be hidden and they can push using the Muslim votes as a lever to scare the politicans.

At this point Labour and the Conservatives are not going to get their vote so it goes to the LibDems who could start to worry the Labour strategists, while they have a big enough majority they can ignore them, when they start to be impacted by the LibDems, they will not.

So I suppose I hope that the present injustice in the voting system stays the same so they don't have to worry about them.

I guess my comment is based on the level of population where they have the ability to win when it comes to a fight, as it may well do, remember our population is not set up for this, while theirs will be younger and also prepared, Jihadic training camps and karate training.

No the Muslims tend to congregate where they can mix together so that will impar their impact on the political system.

The 2.5 party system will prevent any Muslim party as such gaining power so I do not think that their true political desires will be there for all to see.

Daffersd I think you are right. Do you remember during the elction when der boyz from MPACUK (Moslem Public Affiars Committee UK) were going around telling Moslems who to vote for in various constituentcies, and it varied between the parties being based purely on the candidate's view on certain issues. They wanted Jack Straw out of Blackburn because of his support for the war in Iraq and Mike Gapes out of Ilford because of his expressed support for Israel and his temerity in working for his Jewish constituents when he should have been grovelling to his Moslim ones.

I think Lindsey Germaine the respect groupie and Gareth Pierce the HR lawyer (such a feminist she won't use her Christian name - Jean. With few IRA terrorists left to work for she has taken on the Islamic ones) will find Islam to be a difficult tiger to ride.

scuse me what is meant by the word "troll" in this discussion?

Yes I do, in fact that backfired on them a bit with Labour, it is true that the Labour party can no longer take the Muslims for granted, but it has worked the other way too, to the benefit of us freedom loving folk.

When you flex muscle you lose friends and influence, I think and I hope that this happens with the Labour party and the Muslims.

Beagle,

I agree with your comments.

Unlike Hugh, I wish to see an end to the bloodletting and suffering of the Iraqi people. I don't see how the ascendency and triumph of the most violent and fanatical elements within the Islamic world will in any way foster progress.

While I don't believe in a "moderate Islam," I do believe there are millions of moderate Muslims in the world. Hugh wants to turn his back on them by terminating civilizational contacts (spelled out in an essay written in the comments section of a previous JW article). I believe in engaging them, to nurture their tendencies towards moderation and away from extremism.

I believe we have considerable assets in the Muslim world; leaders who generally support our policies and cooperate with us on security issues (the list is a long one); intellectuals, journalists and others who support Democratization, modernity and moderation (Memri has documented the written words of many of these courageous souls).

To follow Hugh's path and pull our troops out of the region, expell Muslim students from US universities and end other facets of civilizational cooperation is to throw away all the aforementioned assets and basically end our influence in the Muslim world. His advocacy of such radical solutions is a reflection of his utter pessimism on the issue.

While I am no optimist, I do feel that we have a realistic chance to isolate the worst malignancies incubating within the Muslim world, Islamism and Jihadism...that while Islamic doctrinal perogatives are indeed etched in stone, the behavior and attitudes of Muslims themselves are at least somewhat malleable...that we have at least a CHANCE of using our considerable cultural, ecomomic, political and yes, military resources to pull the Muslim world in the direction of modernity and moderation.

Part of the strategy must be an honest exposition of the intolerance of Islamic theology. I agree completely with Robert Spencer that the obsequious validation Islam receives in the West only constricts the parameters from which Muslim reformers can operate. Doctrinal intolerance and the moral failings of the Prophet Muhammad should and must receive the light of day as part-and-parcel of a broader strategy to weane the Muslim world away from its infantility.

But we must also operate on a practical level. Turning our backs on the Muslim world is to simply cede the battleground to the enemy.

I don't believe in "malign neglect." I believe in active engagement.

freddie:

"Trolls" in the context of websites such as this one are parties whose purpose in posting is to attack or annoy others, with varying degrees of malice.

DW's sister site, JihadWatch was attacked by a particularly vicious neo-Nazi earlier this summer who froze the site with multiple lengthy postings of gibberish. ia786 and KingTolerance are merely trolls of the very irritating variety, relying on bad moral equivalence arguments or offering circular arguments, which is probably why they haven't been banned.

Albion,

I keep my fingers crossed that people keep learning, ignore this religion of peace crap and start expressing their views and with ever more force. We can not let this rest, if we do these intolerant facists will win.

I am still multi-culturist and liberal, but not with Islam, because I recognise it for what it is, just another ideology to control the masses, stifle free thinking and allow the lucky few to lord it over the many and have the power of life and death (and even afterlife) over them, and I can also see its intent.

Many people will turn round and say there is no head to it, but I think that is wrong, the head of the religion is the main schools of jurisprudence across the different sects of Islam, I get the feeling that policy is made there and the massive wave of immigration from the late 70's onwards was facilitated from there.

Cornelius,

I understand where you are coming from and in my lighter moments would be with you, after all I read many Iraqi blogs and saw the delight of many that they were free, but I am seeing a pessimism there now.

I would agree with you apart from one thing, the battleground has moved and it is on our own doorsetp, and my pessimism comes from the fact that we can not even modernise a large and growing percentage of our own population of Muslims. Who live in a free open society, what chance in a society where intimidation and arbatory killing is the norm.

To me its fundementally a resource issue, we can't do both, when the killing really starts in Europe we will have real problems just keeping a lid on it here and certainly will not have the resources to deal with the Middle East.

As last I see progress in Europe from the politicians, who seem to be (at last) waking up.

But we can do without the misreading of Jihad by the Economist amoung many others in that rather amazing Anachists and Jihadists article, the author has obviously been too clever trying to work out a link that he has not bothered to look into the history of Jihad and Islam.

Jen-

The equivalent to Fromm's great book, for Islam, would be "Escape To Slavery" (or the more palatable 'submission').

But, if you escape FROM their slavery, as an apostate they can, like the Nazis, hunt you down as kill you, beating you to death with a Pillar.

OT

Why anyone bothers with the proven pathological liars (or is it just masters of taqiyya?) like King Tut Tut or ia666 (and I suspect freddiethefreeloader of being a Muslim "provocateur" posing as an "anti-jihad sympathizer", since my bullsh*t detector goes off every time I read one of his posts... the disingenuous "what is a 'troll?" type stuff, ad absurdum...) I can't figure.

You are all yodeling into a made-up-its-mind-forever vacuum.

As my grandmother used to say:

"Don't water weeds."

BigSleep:

freddie isn't a Muslim provacateur. He's what he says he is, a Scot and regular attendant of a fundamentalist Protestant Christian denomination of the Pat Robertson variety. His opinions show, if anything, the extent to which the UK media is blatantly Arabist in its perspectives when it comes to Israel.

Whatever other opinions freddie expresses, many of which have irritated me, he's no apologist or stalking horse for jihad or Islam.

Albion,
You said 'I for one cannot see the English, in particular, standing for the imposition of Sharia in any form, even if it is just for the faithful.'

But it is too late! The Muslims have already had British law changed in their favour. Halal meat is available in many supermarkets.
As you probably know, it is illegal in Britain to slaughter animals unless they are stunned first, in order to minimize any suffering. Unless you have an exemption - which the Kosher and Halal slaughter houses have. The Halal method of slaughter is to slit the throat of the animal and then hang it upside down until it has bled to death, a practise which the Farm Animal Welfare Council finds unacceptable.
[I find it not only unacceptable but totally abhorrent].
Despite the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendation to the government that Halal slaughter should be banned in Britain, it still continues. Worse, some of this meat is then found to be unsuitable for the Halal market, and is sold on to the public without being labelled as Halal - again despite a recommendation by the FAWC that all such meat should be clearly labelled.
You may well have eaten meat from tortured animals yourself!
You can download a copy of the FAWC report, and the goverment's responses to the various recommendations, here:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fawc%2Dslaughter/
See recommendation 61, page 16.

Jen, many thanks for the reference to (and reminder of) Eric Fromm's book "Escape From Freedom". I read that book in the late 60s or early 70s, and read parts of it more than once. It is a "must read". I'm going to track it down again, but (Alas!) my wife has banished most of my library to the attic. It may be easier to buy another.

I would also recommend Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" for additional psychological insight, especially pertaining to the alienation or denial of self.

What the trolls (and apologists) fail to realize in their defense of islam, is that the extreme, violent, jihadist views are an ORTHODOXY in the muslim faith. In contrast, such views are UNORTHODOX and DEVIANT in other religions.

In any event, I agree with Poetess and others that we should avoid arguing with the trolls. Arguing with trolls is like fighting with pigs. You end up getting very muddy, and the pigs love it.

"Salim Mansur
National Post

August 24, 2005"

Waterdragon, that was a pretty decent article.

The Kharijites are those that showed opposition to the Prophet, they opposed the Caliphs and caused alot of problems for the Muslims. Things have not changed, the Prophet said (hadith) that they (Kharijites) would keep rising, again and again, generation after generation until they find themselves on the side of the Anti-Christ, they have always come against the mainstream Muslims and will join the Anti-Christ because of this.

We are told that the modern day Kharijites (Wahabi/Salafists) will denounce the Mahdi and oppose him when he is unveiled. These Kharijites are a cancer and need to be sorted it ouuuuut. They will be sorted out no doubt.

I think one quote says it all (much to my disgrace I cant remember who to attribut it to )

"" ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH
IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING ""

Just about sums up the British Govt's attitude when it comes to dealing with these radicals in our midst.

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -
Edmund Burke 1729-1797 - Irish philosopher

ia786:

Sorted out by whom and using what means?

Spencer posted the article on J/W yesterday after I drew it to his attention and either he or Hugh illustrated via commentary how the Kharijites weren't the only bad actors among Muslims, just as the Wahhab/Salafists aren't the only nihilistic fanatics in the Muslim world. I suggest you go check out the comments.

How much of the strife we are seeing in the world today is the result of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran to be upholders of the true faith, and not because of the wicked, predatory infidels?

UK: jihadists "like Nazis"?
little wonder if one remembers Mohammed like Hitler!

"Sorted out by whom and using what means?"

By every nation, both Muslim and Non-Muslim. Extremisit organisations need to be made illegal, extremists in the West should be deported.

Saudi Arabia needs to be sorted out, by the Arse kissing USA, the ball is in George Bush's court.

I don't agree with the Wahabist view, they are blasphemers.

"How much of the strife we are seeing in the world today is the result of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran to be upholders of the true faith, and not because of the wicked, predatory infidels?"

Alot.

Ia,

Well, I'm glad to know you think that the Wahhabis are blasphemers.

After all, it wouldn't do for non-muslims to be oppressed by the wrong kind of islam.

Not deen, that.

Prophet Geoff

"Ia,

Well, I'm glad to know you think that the Wahhabis are blasphemers.

After all, it wouldn't do for non-muslims to be oppressed by the wrong kind of islam.

Not deen, that.

Prophet Geoff"

.........????

What?!?!

What?!?!
Oh Dear ia, it does spoil the joke when it has to be spelled out. Do you not remember the British Rail excuses during the heavy snow about 3-4 years ago. The network came to a standstill after about 2" of snow fell on the lines. When asked (in parliament if I recall correctly) why the BR snowploughs had failed to clear the track the answer was that this was "the wrong kind of snow" Apparently the snow that actually fell was light, dry and powdery. The snowploughs were designed for thick, wet and heavy.

The phrase has become a standing joke, and has entered the mainstream language. Funnily enough Geoff and I were playing around it with on another thread earlier.

"Oh Dear ia, it does spoil the joke when it has to be spelled out. Do you not remember the British Rail excuses during the heavy snow about 3-4 years ago. The network came to a standstill after about 2" of snow fell on the lines. When asked (in parliament if I recall correctly) why the BR snowploughs had failed to clear the track the answer was that this was "the wrong kind of snow" Apparently the snow that actually fell was light, dry and powdery. The snowploughs were designed for thick, wet and heavy.

The phrase has become a standing joke, and has entered the mainstream language. Funnily enough Geoff and I were playing around it with on another thread earlier."

Oh right.

Ia1a1a1a:

"..Will depose the mahdi once he is 'unveiled'."

I saw the 'Mahdi'- 1a. I unveiled him. Then I flushed!

And you watch out for that yellow snow!

Oh, no, somebody has let the syphilitic Mohammedan monkey out of its cage again.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Americanos still have slaves, especially in the Far East. Slavery is alive today and the Americans are bringing only more and more misery to the vulnerable people. Why is America spreading White supremacy across the World, why does America aim to hold other non-White people back, please tell me. ............ America is forcing White supremacy on the rest of the World. The US is easily the most hated and feared country in the World. Even in Europe the image of the US is in tatters. Global warming, globalisation, slavery, looting, murdering, poisoning, the dropping of nukes on Non-White innocents, TWICE, the raping of French girls and women in WW2. The use of DU and Cluster bombs.
The total disregard for human life."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Question:

Where did this come from?

A. Osama Bin Laden's latest video
B. A London suicide bomber's last letter to the world
C. A speech by Ayatollah Khomeini (on a bad hair day)
D. A sermon given by Omar Bakri Mohammed
E. A posting by ia786 on DW

If you answered E., (that "moderate Muslim" from Jolly Olde England) - congratulations! You've won a three-month holiday to any Muslim country of your choice, or $25.00 cash....

What's that??? You want the 25 bucks?

Are you mad?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hey Terminator,

Have you ever thought of taking up "Islamic poetry"?

I'm sure Mr. Spencer, with all the money from his new book, could get your work published, and even get it translated into Persian and classical Arabic.