Daniel Pipes responds in FrontPage to a silly New Republic piece minimizing jihadist activity in the US. Many good links in the original:
“It’s startling,” proclaims Spencer Ackerman in a New Republic cover story dated today, “how few American Muslim extremists there actually are.” The article, “Religious Protection: Why American Muslims haven’t turned to terrorism,” contrasts American Muslims with their European counterparts, whom he finds have turned to terrorism.American Muslims are not terrorists? What is Ackerman thinking?
In an article and blog just this past week, I reported on fifteen American Muslim converts who have either engaged in terrorism or been convicted of trying to do so. In a follow-up piece, I listed another fifteen American converts to Islam suspected, arrested, or indicted of terrorism. That’s thirty converts. I have not counted the immigrant Muslims and their offspring implicated in terrorism, but here is some information that hints to their numbers:
With the exception of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, notes al-Qaeda authority Rohan Gunaratna, all major terrorist attacks of the past decade in the West have been carried out by immigrants. A closer look finds that these were not just any immigrants but invariably from a specific background: Of the 212 suspected and convicted terrorist perpetrators during 1993-2003, 86 percent were Muslim immigrants and the remainder mainly converts to Islam. “In Western countries jihad has grown mainly via Muslim immigration,” concludes Robert S. Leiken, a specialist on immigration and national security issues, in an important new monograph, Bearers of Global Jihad: Immigration and National Security after 9/11.
Or, to quote a conclusion Khalid Durán and I reached in 2002: “In its long history of immigration, the United States has never encountered so violence-prone and radicalized a community as the Muslims who have arrived since 1965.”Applying that 86 percent figure just to the United States implies some 175 immigrant Muslims associated with terrorism. Let’s round it off to 200 cases in all of American Muslims who have “turned to terrorism,” which strikes me as a reasonable figure.
Ackerman waves these hundreds away as irrelevant: “It’s true that extremist messages exist in American Muslim communities, and there have been a few instances of American Muslims becoming terrorists. Those extremely rare cases, however, are far better explained by individual pathology than by rising Islamic militancy due to group disaffection.” Yes, 200 persons out of a population of some 3 million American Muslims is “extremely rare,” but the same low ratio applies in Europe, where terrorists are also “extremely rare.”
In short, Ackerman’s premise is flawed from the start; and so, unsurprisingly, is the analysis that follows, namely his claim that better social and economic opportunities open to American Muslims as well as “America’s ability to accommodate Islam itself” account for the supposedly benign situation in the United States. Rather, the differences between U.S. and European Muslims have less to do with their respective social virtues than with their Muslim populations. America’s Muslims tend to be engineers and doctors; Europe’s tend to be factory hands and street sweepers.
Ackerman thinks American Muslims have launched few terrorist attacks; in fact, they have engaged in or attempted many since 1980. They are so little known because prosecutors avoid applying the terrorist label and the media ignores them, but they are there. Some twelve attacks involving fatalities occurred on American soil pre-9/11, in addition to many others that did involve deaths or were thwarted. Since 9/11, there have been a number of attacks involving American Muslim terrorists, including:
· July 2002 - Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet’s double murder at the El Al counter in Los Angeles airport.· October 2002 – The Beltway Snipers’ multiple murders in the Washington, D.C., area.
· March 2003 – Hasan Akbar’s fragging of his two officers (at an overseas U.S. military base).
· August 2003 - Mohammed Ali Alayed’s murder of Ariel Sellouk in Houston.
· January 2005 - The Armanious family massacre.
· May-July 2005 – The Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh robbery spree to fund future terrorist activities.
Finally, worrisome signs exist of a growing radicalization among American-born children of immigrants. Space constraints keep from listing the many instances here, but two recent cases come to mind: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (convicted in November of belonging to al-Qaeda and plotting to kill George W. Bush; he could be sentenced to life in prison) and Ali Tamimi (jailed for life in July for recruiting volunteers to go to terrorist training camps abroad). Parents worry about this trend; Achmed Habib, who identifies himself as an American Muslim father, wrote to an Islamist forum asking for help dissuading his son from seeking martyrdom as his two brothers did before him.
A tad less self-congratulation and a lot more research and worrying is in order, Mr. Ackerman.
And posters here believe that this same Daniel Pipes would be praising one of the top candidates for "American Dhimmi of the Year 2005"?
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam
by Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3026
Jeffrey:
With respect, I believe you are overreacting.
It isn't as if we at Jihad Watch have chosen Bush as Dhimmi of the Year.
He was nominated multiple times, so I put him on the ballot.
He isn't even winning. Soon Ramsey Clark will be crowned Dhimmi of the Year, and that will be the end of this. Let it go.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Why does Pipes list the Armanious family as a Muslim act of terror? I thought it was a robbery that went wrong or has there been new information?
The silly, pollyannish, pockmarked with bland assumptions, altogether atrocious Ackerman article failed to note all sorts of reasons why the menace of Islam is less pronounced in the United States than in, for example, France or England. The main reason is that there are far fewer Muslims. That's it. There are fewer, they are less organized, and the sly exploitation of pre-existing mental conditions -- chiefly anti-Americanism and antisemitism -- have been less successful here, for obvious reasons, than in Western Europe. And a second reason is that most people do not yet exhibit the softening of the brain that has been so evident, after so many decades of diligent work, much of it from the top down (see Bat Ye'or's discussion of the "Euro-Arab Dialogue" and the official agreements that have resulted), that have until recently made Europeans more susceptible to the apologists for Islam.
But everywhere, through the actions of Muslims themselves, and the glimmer of an undrstanding that the espositos and armstrongs, and the army of apologists at MESA Nostra, are not the last word, and that there are now, and have been in the recent past, many Western scholars of Islam (see "The Legacy of Jihad") who understood it.
As for the Armanious case listed in the Pipes article -- since there has been total silence about it, one does not know if the original suspicions, voiced at JW, remain refuted by the evidence, or whether in fact those suspicions, rational and well-founded (at least as rational, and well-founded, as the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction), are borne out by the investigation.
Igor,
I don't know. I myself had some information that seemed quite specific and detailed from Coptic sources close to the family, but nothing came of it. Since I have nothing else to go on, I would not add it to such a list myself at this point. But Dr. Pipes may know something I don't.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
This is confusing.
The New Republic was 100% behind George Bush and the MSM would have a New Republic spokesmen as talking head promoting and defending George Bush for President in 2000.
Yesterday a house was burnt down, but the local news reported that the authorities thought it was a hate crime because there was a swastika on the door, turns out, according to the news, that "the inhabitants were not of mid east origin" (the swastika was a good luck religious symbol native American or Buddhist) but the authorities and the message equated "mid east" as victims of neo NAZI's.
Same thing in Australia..Muslims rioted this weekend, and it is reported that the riots were a reaction to Neo NAZI's. Riots stain Australia’s image of racial harmony From the Financial Times, hardly a lefist rag. Read the article. Meanwhile it is the neo NAZI's and skinheads that have formed an alliance of convenience with the "dark skinned people of mid east origin" (Code word for Arab and of course Arabs have nothing to do with Islam /sarcasm, and Arabs aren't at all antisemitic, more sarcasm)
I emailed my local TV station the memri article
that Robert posted.. American White Supremacist David Duke: My Country Is Also Occupied by the Zionists as well as the Aryan Nations website, where it's Grand Mufti (Islamic beard and all) urges an alliance with the Arabs/Muslims.
As regards Bush, he may not be dhimmi, but he isn't doing anything about the Muslims who have infiltrated the Whitehouse, the funding of Mosques in his faith based initiatives, and the total control of the FBI's "anti terrorism" unit (via it's translation department) by Muslims, as noted by Paul Sperry in his book Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have infiltrated Washington and again in a Front Page article by Sperry, about the Muslim FBI Agent whose loyalty to Islam was responsible for lack of evidence to convict Sami al Arian.
And oh yes, it was Bush, he appointed the head of the FBI who has done nothing to clean out the Islamist loyalists, and there are still no Arab speaking Jews in the translation department.. in fact the head of that department is an Islamist.
Meanwhile Bush is still family friends with the Saudi's, and "fuck the Jews" Jim Baker's law firm of Baker Botts represents both the Bush family and the Saudis and is the prime Saudi lobby in Washington.
Methinks Bush's speech doesn't indicate that he recognizes that Islam is terrorism, he still seperates Islam form Islamic terrorism.
Just like the Presbyterians are antiZionist Protestants and the Baptists are proZionist Protestants.
Radical Islam as distinguished from (in Bush's world) the "Religion of peace."
Radical is an adjective, and it doesn't mean that all Muslims or Islam is terrorist (Jihadis), in the world of the apologist or ignorant there are radical Islamists and peaceful Islamists.
Daniel Pipes is seeing what he wants to see.
There is something peculiar about those who wish to exempt Bush and others in his administration from criticism or even ridicule at this site. Appparently believing that the best way to attract others to the site, and to make them aware of the menace of those doctrines, those tenets and attitudes, to which a belief or a felt loyalty even in the absence of firm belief, to the texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and the received version of Muhammad's life, the Sira, is to make this one more celebration of the Wisdom of the Administration, one more solidly Republican or "conservative" site, one more absolutely predictable place. In other words, the way to attract all those people who are not Republicans, and not "conservatives," but who may in fact become alarmed, if made aware of the evidence both of texts and of history, is to tell them that Bush is beyond criticism, that something called "the Left" or, still worse, the "Left Liberals" are entirely responsible for all that ails us, and so on and so forth.
Suppose one really believed all that -- that everything wrong with the universe comes from people so easily called "left liberals." Would one who came to JW to find out about how to educate himself, and others, as to the nature of the threat, which is not nearly as simple a matter to dissect as, say, that of Hitlerism, for there is the problem of those who are born innocently into something and may not be fully aware, or may not allow themselves to be fully aware, of what it is they are pledging their loyalty to when they continue to exhibit, as so many do, continued defensiveness and even willingness to misstate what Islam is all about, as if we Infidels have no way to check for ourselves what the texts, and the real scholars (say, Snouck Hurgronje or Armand Abel, rather than the espositos who continue to be taken seriously by the most naive of journalists if no longer by government officials), have to tell us about the tenets and history of Islam.
Would one not wish to have JW as non-partisan as possible, an equal-opportunity smiter of foolishness? Would that not be the best way to increase its appeal? Apparently, to judge by a querulous complaint above, that has not occurrred to everyone, some seeming more interested in exempting Bush, Rice, Hughes, and others from criticism, despite their continued willingness to pay what can only be described as a Jizyah-tax (to all those Arabs and Muslims who happened not to be blessed with oil and gas), who have failed not merely to articulate the problem but even to hint, synecdochically, through repeated use of the word "Jihad," at the problem itself, who continue to believe that they need to placate the House of Al-Saud, which is nonsense (see at JW the article "Read the Saudis the Riot Act") -- we don't need their "friendship" but rather their cooperation, and that cooperation should be obtained because they, too, have a stake in their own survival, far more of a stake than we do (if Al Qaeda or all those groups exaclty like Al Qaeda were to seize Saudi Arabia, the Americans could promptly seize the oilfields of Al-Hasa -- it is silly to think they would simply be allowed to fall into hands even worse than those of the malevolent and meretricious Al-Saud), and who in Iraq are obstinately refusing to see that the best way to weakena and divide and demoralize the world of Islam is to allow the Sunnis and the Shi'a to go at it, with the Americans out of it but of course always ready to lend a hand to whichever side it is felt might need it, and simulataneously to support to the hilt the desire of the Kurds for an independent state, which would damage Islam's appeal to non-Arabs by raising the issue, and never letting it go back to being ignored, of Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism -- and might even inspire the Berbers and others to stake their own claims to autonomy and even indepedence.
And all of this would be good. And all of this is not part of the obstinate belief, the repetition of the notion that "democracy" in Iraq will necessarily produce a weakening of Islam -- or is that not the goal? Perhaps we give too much credit to the Administration for thinking that it had come to realize that that, and nothing else, should always and everywhere be the goal.
So for those who, like the poster above, think that the best way to proceed is to make this a forum for exempting Bush and his policies form severe or indeed any criticism, policies toward Saudi Arabia, toward Egypt, toward the "Palestinians," toward Pakistan, and toward Iraq itself, that show an insufficient understanding of Islam, of its unswerving and immutable goals, of the duties imposed on its adherents and the loyalties they must offer and those they cannot possibly offer, and of a good deal else, that are insufficient in every respect, and not to be applauded because some or many of those who hate him are even worse.
This site's existence has been prompted by the perceived need to alert and educate all sorts and conditions of people in all sorts of countries, as to the nature of the Islam. It is pedagogic in nature: to examine, and analyze, the real, as opposed to the bland and soothing meanings ascribed by The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon and other elements of the mass media, to Jihad News of the Day. Analysis is also provided of the attempts of Muslim spokesmen and groups to offer various kinds of taqiyuya-and-tu-quoque, including selective quotation and misquotation, and deliberate omission of major elements of the faith (CAIR does not send out copies of the Sira or the Hadith, though it will send out that opaque, often easily-misunderstood text, the Qur'an), and the ways in which Infidels, eager to deny the evidence of their senses, collaborate in these often farcical efforts. And much more.
This is not a site devoted to urrah-celebration of Bush, right or wrong. And it would defeat its purpose if it were ever to be seen that way, or dismissed as such.
Some commentators, posters, and individuals in government and in the public at large concentrate on only one facet -- "terrorism," or violence. Violence is a strategy to accomplish the goal, the real danger.
As we are focusing on murder and violence, Muslims are insinuating Islam into our society, forcing us to make detrimental changes that will do harm to non-Muslims. Are we to allow a tiny minority to dictate the terms of our surrender or to make changes that will benefit only them and lead to our cultural and political downfall?
"So for those who, like the poster above, think that the best way to proceed is to make this a forum for exempting Bush and his policies form severe or indeed any criticism, policies toward Saudi Arabia, toward Egypt, toward the "Palestinians," toward Pakistan, and toward Iraq itself...."
Hugh -
I hope you are not referring to me as "the poster above". Because I never stated or even implied that.
I have stated that there is difference between:
(a) criticizing someone's policies, words, and actions and
(b) charging someone who states they are declaring war on radical Islam as a "dhimmi".
You seem to conflate the two as both being reasonable and balanced.
Moreover, you suggest that anyone who thinks the two are different degrees of criticism is an apologist for Bush.
But they are not the same at all.
The concept I am addressing is one of balance, not at all the same as silencing criticism.
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century," are not the words of a dhimmi to Islam.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism" are not the words of a dhimmi to Islam.
It is that simple.
That does not mean that such a person may be wrong, may have made mistakes, and deserves criticism. But to call such a person a dhimmi lacks balance.
That is not at all the same as "to make this a forum for exempting Bush and his policies".
I think the challenge is when someone brings up such a legitimate point for consideration, that you prejudge that person is defending Bush's actions. Why?
Not the same at all, Hugh.
Although I'm something of a Daniel Pipes fan and yearn for the day when the Psalms of David in Common Meter are sung in Mecca itself, I'm not tarring the bulk of American Muslims with the terrorist brush; and I'm more impressed that Muslims in America have said many a loud "NO" to the terrorists than by the Lindhs and al-Arians. Yes, we've had some high-profile cases, and we should not lose our vigilance. However, there have been Muslims kvetching for years over the radicals' takeover of their mosques; an Arab immigrant who went to the NYPD over things his roomies tried to recruit him for; the Yemeni immigrants who fingered the Lackawanna Six; and numbers of others clearly embarrassed by what is going on in the name of Islam. Such people should remain under the full protection of American law and enjoy the respect of the rest of us in the USA.
BTW, Nariz, one does not have to buy the Hal Lindsey or _Left Behind_ line in eschatology in order to sympathize with Zionism. I'm a hard-core covenantalist Presbyterian, but I also accept Israel's right to exist and applaud its stance for civilization and decency. One can make cases on matters of justice, too.
Hugh,
Bingo. For now.
You can bet when they feel emboldened by numbers they will be aggressive here too.
As with the Mexican government handing out Mexican textbooks, will our leaders permit the muslims to take over without a whimper? Where has the independent spirit that made this country great gone? The men who fought at the Alamo and San Jacinto would roll over in their graves to see how our leaders are giving up what they fought for, and for what?
Hugh,
You talk way too much.
It's hard to make a case for "integration" being significant so long as the Koran and ahadith are out there waiting to reinvograte a new generation of beheading, kamikaze, sociopaths.
"Hugh,
You talk way too much."
- from a posting above
No. I don't.
I dunno, Bobbie, I think Dub coulda' been a contendah.
Yes, Hugh, you do.
Does Hugh cut & paste?
Nariz writes:
"Methinks Bush's speech doesn't indicate that he recognizes that Islam is terrorism, he still seperates Islam form Islamic terrorism."
Yes, I agree with that. And that makes the President seem rather dim, not dhimmi. And as you point out, James Baker is a dhimmi, and Grover is probably a crypto muslim. Given that we know this president is prone to cronyism, it is a problem.
But I reiterate, it seems more that he believes against all evidence that Islam itself isn't
the problem. That's a failing that affects a lot of people.
Now, my distinguished friend from across the aisle, which of your alternative candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the threat? I ask not to badger, but rather to find a hand I can reach to. I'd vote for an anti-jihad left wing candidate over a dhimmi conservative, but so far the former seem scarce, even nonexistent.
I can at least point to Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo, who whatever their other failings, seem
to have a clue. Where are those anti-dhimmi
Democrats? Like I said, I'm not picking a fight,
I'm looking for someone to help!
I was amused to get a e-mail promotion from the editor of the New Republic citing Ackerman’s article as an inducement to become a subscriber. (Unlike Human Events which offered me Spencer’s “PIG to Islam.”) I wrote about New Republic's article a week ago on my blog. But just prior to that I wrote about the dhimmitude at National Review and before that I was tough on William Buckley.
As a Republican conservative, I spend most of my time criticizing my fellow conservatives that are in denial about Islam. This is the most important issue for our country today. I’d like to vote for candidates that share my domestic agenda but if it turns out the Democrats wake-up first, they’ll get my vote. I once wrote on this site that I’d love a replay of the 1960’s election where both sides charged the other with being “soft on communism” (if I remember correctly) – only replace communism with Islam[ism.] I also find that my general reader--mostly conservative, moderate, or libertarian--share my concern that our side isn’t facing the threat.
Hugh, l for one do not think that Bush is perfect, but l would trust him more than the likes of Kerry and his ilk. it seems no politician can please you all the time. we live in a very PC environment, and conservatives tend to be cautious as they are branded racists from the left which are to my point the real racist. We have all this hammering away from the liberal media, the mouth piece for the Democrats, EU,and the UN. Bush has been the most consistent and no guessing he means more of what he says than any of the Democrats. if you listen to the Democrats, Cdn liberal party, the EU, 9-11 never happened.. they keep saying we are more at risk with the environment, hurricanes etc than any muslim terrorist. you people who are so damm critical of Bush, need to get a reality check.
Does Hugh cut & paste?
Posted by: Havoc at December 12, 2005 12:41 PM
Unfortunate that you do not appreciate the humoungitude of Hugh’s clarifications. There are some who hope for many Hugh writings in the future, and for a long time to come. Snide attacks on valuable authors of useful post do nothing but clutter the site.
Just FYI, I tried to get information from the New Jersey court system regarding the Armanious family murder. From news accounts, I know that Edward McDonald and Hamilton Sanchez were arraigned in State Superior Court (Hudson County) in front of Judge Kevin Callahan on Friday, March 4, 2005. They pled not guilty.
Beyond that, I was told by court personnel that they don't even give out docket numbers, which would allow researching the status of the case. There have been no news reports on the case since that time (9 months ago).
I am still trying to find out the status, time permitting, and will report back what I find.
The day that Hugh's spotlight-on-the-truth essays are drowned out by someone holding a little AA flashlight is the day I stop reading JW.
This is JihadWatch.org, isn't it? I didn't accidentally log onto GeorgeBushIsTheMostPerfectPresidentInTheHistoryOfMankind.com, did I?
If Clinton or Carter did 1/10 of the things that Bush does, whether it is kissing the tusches of Saudi princes or having close personal advisors who are pure Islamic propogandists (see the aforementioned Grover Nordquist) or stifling all attempts to reduce our oil consumption or continuing in the face of all reason to massively fund the "Palestinians" or getting us into a slogging war against a dictatorship that had nothing to do with 9/11 while building closer personal relations with the nation that was most connected to 9/11, you'd all be fighting with each other to be the first one to sign the impeachment petition. In your heart, you know it's true.
It looks more like a foghorn, than a spotlight, to me. But, then, I have a low threshold for BS.
Should I have said "kazoo" then to complete the new analogy?
Muslim immigration is characterized by violence (mostly verbal, but easy and keen to turn physical) and desire to prevaricate. Wherever they are, their ultimate goal is domination and power. Only very few are active terrorists, but they are all supporters of a violent confrontation with native cultures and communities. Here in my hometown (Como, Northern Italy) these days we are having troubles with the local Muslim community, whose leader is loudly asking for the Como City Hall to provide them with a mosque. We non Muslims are expected to pay for it, it is our duty, our obligation, they do not miss a chance to remind us it is their right to have us pay for their mosque. They even threated to invade the City Hall and turn it into their own mosque. In Milan, when authorities closed the local madrassa because illegally operating and suspected to be a source for terrorism, they just invaded the streets and turned them into a mosque, for days in a row. Sorry, but that's what Islam is.
Bush is a dhimmi at best and a deceiver at worst. I'm sorry but I don't take his one speech against "radical Islam" as proof of his anti-dhimmi credentials. I am aware of the fact that he can't declare war against Islam itself, but this constant placating to the Muslims, the annual Ramadan dinners, the speeches about Islam being a religion of "peace" (I could have understood the practicality of that speech right after 9/11 in order to prevent mob violence against Muslims, but repeating this phrase a billion times over? why?), throwing Israel to the wolves, defending the Saudis when there is no reason to defend them, turning a blind eye to Muslims in our intelligence services, and including Arabists in his inner circle is sickening. Yes I know Kerry would have been much worse, but surely we can do better than Bush. His staunch defenders on this site should be demanding more from him. Bush needs to stop thinking about the Muslim vote (which is pretty insignificant anyways) and not be afraid of offending them. And let's stop wasting our time with these primitive and completely ungrateful "Iraqis" (excluding the Kurds and Iraqi Christians of course), we tried to help them but they continue to bite the infidel hand that feeds them by legitimizing "resistance" against the American occupation. Enough.
Posted by: special_guest,
This is JihadWatch.org, isn't it? I didn't accidentally log onto GeorgeBushIsTheMostPerfectPresidentInTheHistoryOfMankind.com, did I? …
...And then you go on to do nothing more than sound like Alan Colmes...yawn! Alan Colmes who openly believes...as do most self-proclaimed Libs that religion has nothing to do with the current environment.
Yes this is Jihad Watch, and No most of the longtime contributing posters are NOT liberal idiots spouting the same old anti-Bush BS like yourself. Then again most have moved beyond the party system diad and don’t see Bush as the answer either. You may want to do a bit of homework and review a few articles before you rush to judgment and look like just another Blog happy Liberal.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have more to do with the current environment than any other presidents since the Kennedy/Johnson era. They just happen to be Socialists and Communist sympathizers wrapped in the guise of… you guessed it: Liberalism! The facts remain that these are the only two democrat presidents in the last 40 years. Thanks again Libs…
Validus said "bla bla bla you're a poopyhead liberal bla bla bla Clinton is a communist bla bla bla liberals are the cause of all evil in the world bla bla bla most have moved beyond the party system diad and don’t see Bush as the answer either."
Well, that's exactly the point isn't it. That many like yourself cannot handle criticism of the policies of a so-called conservative like Bush. Is your posting an example of an enlightened conservative moving beyond party politics?
Not so Special Guest,
Thank You for furthering my point!
My friends, greetings and peace be apon you.
And it was written.
K.R v1:34.6: If there are of two cows one who giveth of urr and the other not. Will the one who bears of fruit give as much to ones who do not want much. Nay I say to you multiply, bear many to drink from the good urr.
Now ponder that. This is why we will win. Because we can confuse you and make you feel guilty. We were here second but we will make you think we were here first. We are holier than you because you are afraid to stand your mental ground.
You leave your faith you were brought up with because you are just listening to what is being said instead to think what is being said. You think in balck and white, 1s and 0s, but life is shades.
I don't care what you do but just stand your mental ground on your faith. Then we will respect you.
Posted by: Mekoots
I don't care what you do but just stand your mental ground on your faith. Then we will respect you.
All Muslim double-speak aside...but what you fail to realize here is that no one is seeking your approval.
Death to Islam...in other words
At the end of the day all the Muslim double speak will come down to this, and sooner than most would like to believe. That is, either you reel in the so-called fundamentalist minority within your own group or become guilty by association. This is the primary media hoax in regard to the fascist arm of Islam: That the radicals are just a small minority -“really”- I think not! Even if by mere numbers they represent a minority within the group, they are holding the entire body hostage through intimidation. Believe it!
The majority of Muslims are allowing and in many ways supporting the fundamentalists to do their bidding. They turn to the religion as a convenient way of appearing benign and / or appalled to the violent acts of a few. They wrap themselves safely behind the double-blind escutcheon of being “devout Muslims” and the protectionism of Western laws and sensibilities. It’s all part of the plan…we must awaken to the truth of the situation and ignore the media bias and PC brouhaha…The Islamic-Trojan Horse is no longer outside the gate of the Western World.
For those Muslims and proponents of Islam that just think I am talking out the other end, I offer the following: I have been embedded in my local Islamic Center as a false-convert for several years since 911. A Syrian with refuge status in the US initiated me to the community. I had known the Syrian for about a year as we both worked in an industry that attracts many Arab immigrants. I had his trust and thus moved quickly to establish acceptance with dozens of Muslims families.
Trust me, the above outline is but a tame and limited explanation as to the current state of affairs in regard to Islamic Imperialist desires. I encourage others to see this firsthand by using similar techniques to embed themselves in their local Islamic Centers throughout the Western World…It may take a while as everyone in the beginning is on their best behavior and utterly suspect of your motivations. Be patient and you will be exposed to just what the Wahabbists have in mind for your and my future.
They believe you are stupid…they believe you are gullible…They believe you are the root of all that is wrong with their thousand year old vision of the way the world should be. They have contempt for you that has been beat into them from conception. Go see for yourself! They will smile to your face as they lie again and again, and then invoke their “Holier than Thou” stance to justify it all…believe it! They do! Infiltrating the Jihadists at the source of their community is the only way to turn the table in real-time. All is fair…after all this is Jihad. All glory to God!
Posted by: Mekoots
Now ponder that. This is why we will win. Because we can confuse you and make you feel guilty. We were here second but we will make you think we were here first. We are holier than you because you are afraid to stand your mental ground.
Well now! How enlightened all your BS sounds. Gee special_ guest and you should hook-up.
Assume and be Damned pal...what are you just plain brain washed? Armed with just enough "so called” liberal education to be dangerous to yourself and any who would listen to your "Wanna Be Dhimmi Bull Shit" What an idiot...no, not just an idiot [based on your feeble grasp of history] but a "Whole New Breed Of IDIOT" The Saracens didn't prevail then and they aren't about to now. The timing of your naive hubris just further exemplifies your greatest weakness, that being your lack of understanding the true essence of Westerners or their culture(s). The biased liberal media by which you surmise us is giving you a false sense of accomplishment…they and the political bodies are propagandizing you with THEIR cowardice. I promise you; all that you are witnessing is the largest galvinization of Westerners behind the scenes and in greater numbers than the media or you could ever estimate. A Thousand Thousand Westerners from all parts of the Globe who were on the fence just a month ago are no longer vacillating…and thus the seeds of your and the New Breed’s ultimate demise are gaining strength in every directions. You wanted a religious war…be careful what you wish for!
Not so Special Guest -
No one is seeking you approval either.
Assume & be Damned!
special guest
I have finished posting and now move toward jerking the chains of Liberals like you face to face for the rest of the day...this of course is child's play.
Validus, I stand in awe, both of your abilities to reason clearly and your physical strength. I have gained much from our discussion, thank you.
I'd like to sit you two down at a table to discuss things... but first you both need to agree what shape it needs to be.
You sound like angry people. Do you believe in anything greater than you, do you look past your nose, or do you wait for a research group to tell you what is real or what you can believe in.
Mekoots~
Do you believe in anything greater than you
Yes. (well, some/most of us)
do you look past your nose
Most definitely Yes. And we see God's Sky, not the dirt, when we pray
Or do you wait for a research group to tell you what is real or what you can believe in.
Sorry, I don't do polls. By the way, the polls are running 5:1 against you.
Sorry everyone, I am in a mood tonight.
Validus, for an admitted Muslim spy, I'm surprised you don't have a ready copy of the Koran for immediate perusal. If you did, you'd find that you were taken in by Mekoots gobbledygook about cows, urr (WTF is "urr'??! I asked myself)and multiplication.
The actual sura Mekoots/Incahoots/whatever was pretending to quote is nothing more than Muhammed blathering and ranting on about how not enough people believe he's a prophet.....like the vast majority of that tiresome, loathesome book. No cows or urr, unfortunately.
He's probably not even a MUslim, but just some troll who managed to get a rise out of you.
Havoc writes:
"It looks more like a foghorn, than a spotlight, to me. But, then, I have a low threshold for BS."
More likely, just not a fast reader, or thinker,
who fancies himself a stoic Marlboro man type.
Big jockstrap, small helmet. Maybe you should
find a simpler site, like islamcomicbook.com,
to vent.
I can't write as well as Hugh does, but I can
appreciate his artistry. You have grunted out
some obvious truths (about deep penetrating nukes)
but also let fly with some BS about men delegating
tasks to women being pussies; none of it argued,
just asserted.
Learn from your betters. I know, it's not likely,
but try.
Hugh,
can we be sure that saddam hussein did not have WMD? Several points:
1- his refusal to allow the inspectors to get in to all sites without delay
2- trucks seen entering Syria from Iraq before the attack
3- Israel pm Sharon asserting in the fall of 2002 that Iraqi WMD were being shipped to Syria and hidden there
4- discovery of a truck fitted with what appeared to be a mobile laboratory, whereas this truck and lab were remarkably similar to a graphic sketch of such a mobile installation presented by Colin Powell to the UN
5-reports by Syrian exiles in the West reported on the proche-orient.info website and elsewhere about Iraq WMD in Syria and claiming to know their locations.
The arrogant, aggressive way bashar Assad is acting lately may indicate that he controls WMD now and thus does not fear US military attack.
There is an explanation for the "official" government line about islam.(I think).
I don't like it, but it might work.(I have a more Logical Positivist bent myself).
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c8397.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/wundtjames.html
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Skinner.htm
-------------
There's lots and lot's more stuff to find.
We're gonna "corrupt 'em... with FUN!!! And SHOPPING! And especially good, good,,,,,, SEX!!!
They won't be able to resist, then they'll become pacified like the rest of us.
It's gonna take a few generations, but hopefully it will save over a billion peoples lives.
"can we be sure that saddam hussein did not have WMD?"
-- from a posting above
No. Why do you address the question to me, as if I had expressed reservations about the original invasion and search for such weapons, when I never did? That part, Iraq War #1, was rational and justifiable, but of course is mainly justifiable not on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's agents met with Mohamned Atta, and so on, but because Iraq is a Muslim state, and no Muslim state can from now on be permitted to acquire such weapons. But an Administration tongue-tied on the subject of Islam is incapable of making that point, or even letting others -- say, a few Democratic Senators put up to it -- making it for them.
It is Iraq War #2, Iraq the Democracy, Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, that is a colossal misallocation of resources, based on two failures of intelligence (not intelligence failures): the first, on the nature of Islam, the duty and instruments of Jihad, and the scope and duration of the threat; the second, the forces, centripetal and centrifugal, within Iraq that make it an ideal place to exploit, to play upon, sectarian and ethnic fissures within Islam, and to set up echoes elsewhere in Dar al-Islam.
Eliyahu, you present tantalizing possibilities, but nothing conclusive. Maybe Iraqi WMD's will still show up, maybe in Syria. But my take is:
- Based on the political beating the Administration is taking, they have every motivation to find them if they exist, and to tell us if they find them. I believe they've had a few people working on it, with not much to show.
- Of all the Iraqi people involved (scientists, suppliers, truck drivers, accountants, guards, cooks, mechanics, etc. etc.), not one of them has come forward to collect the multi-million dollar prize and tell us what they saw.
- Hussein had good reasons to bluff that he had weapons that he didn't. Once we invaded, he had good reasons to use them if he had them.
- Even if Iraq had WMD's, the threat doesn't seem as imminent as what we are experiencing from other nations (North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) that we have no intention of invading. We even claim that some of these are our "allies". Even if Iraq had WMD's, they don't anymore. It is in our interest to take our military resources out of Iraq and use them (not necessarily in a "hot" war) somewhere more useful.
Saddam and Afghanistan were just easy excuses to get into islam's back-yard. Now we start the Pragmatic Project in the M.E. Now we can subvert and pressure, and install proper authorities and replace old elite with new. We can protect the women better and facilitate them getting more power.
Iran is going down. Saudi-Arabia is more difficult. Pakistan is going to be kept on a leash for the time being. NO MORE WMD IN THE MIDDLE-EAST. PERIOD.
Islam's main problem is SEXUAL.
Hugh,
I can understand how you feel that Iraq War #2 is folly. I am beginning to believe that myself. However, like the twelve years of diplomacy used on Hussein prior to Iraq War #1, I believe it must be tried, if for no other reason than to justify the next step.
So, assuming it fails, what would be your next step? Massive neutron irradiation? Mow them down conventionally? Pass laws in every western nation making the murder of Muslims legal? How do you suggest your plan meet the approval of Congress/The UN/etc?
In Iraq, support -- covertly if necessary -- the Kurds with weaponry. Leave the others alone. Let them seek aid from Sunnis and Shi'a abroad, if they care to, and are able. Hope that the Iranian government sends basiji, the crazier the better, to fight the Sunnis, and if somehow they could personally meet with the Zarqawites who consider Shi'a "Rafidite dogs" that would put a bounce in everyone's step.
Concentrate on disaming, from afar, Iran. A minimum of contact. A minimum of troops on the ground. A maximum of bombing, missiles, even perhaps choosing something in intercontinental fashion just to make a point, about the long arm of the Infidel law.
Meanwhile, as Muslims fight in Iraq -- or not, it is not necessary that they do so as long as hostile attitudes simmer always on the point of boil -- publicize the Sunni-Shi'a split. It will be publicized in any case. Let's see what this does to Shi'a in Pakistan, to Shi'a in Hasa province, to the Shi'a and Sunnis in Yemen, as each side finds out about, and one hopes identifies with, whatever goes on in Iraq. When screams about "the Americans have to go back in" and "the Americans caused this" and "the Americans can't allow this to happen" begin, smile sweetly, and say that of course we tried, tried, tried, one election, a Constitution, a referendum, a second election, patrolling of cities, suppression of those hostile to the vote-counting that limited Sunni power, all those schools built, and hospitals, and water-treatment plants, and power grids, and so much more but now it is for the "Iraqis" themselves to decide. And as this is taking place, the forced de-nuclearization of Iran will not arouse quite the hysteria among the world's Muslims that it might, because 80% of those Muslims are Sunnis, and they themselves can figure out that allowing Iran to keep those weapons might be bad not only for Israel (that's morally acceptableas far as those Muslims are concerned) but also for Sunni Muslims, and that of course is immortal, in the Sunni view, and completely unacceptable.
And then re-connect to those in Europe who never quite fell for the anti-Ameridanism and antisemitism, and who are now prepared to throw out all the discredited leaders who allowed in so many millions of Muslims in the first place, and like Bush in Iraq, could never quite admit that they had been wrong, and so preach appeasement when quite a different lesson needs to be taught.
The chaos in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world will be a spectacle for Infidels everywhere, as well as for Muslims. The Kurdish attempt to create, for the first time, a non-Arab Muslim sovereign state where the Arabs had ruled, may inspire, could be made to inspire, Berbers -- both those in Algeria and Morocco, and those in France itself, some of whom may be amenable to turning on their Arab Muslim "brothers" and provide the spies, translators, and assorted agents with which to begin to dismantle the Muslim Arab structure in France, and to start shipping all Muslim non-citizens back to countries of origin.
And if the Darfur and Sudan are still scenes of meretriciousness and murder, then it may be time, as Iraq takes up the attention, money, materiel of the Arabs and Iranians, to seize both with a few thousand men (and planes), and hold them so that a "referendum on independence" can be held. This will have several effects. In black Africa itself, it will electrify black Christians, who have felt ever since the West's complete indifference to helping Biafra, that they are left to deal with aggressive Islam, now funded by the Saudis, all over the contienent. This will undo that steady demoralization. It will do something further. All over the Western world, the black populations have been identified as ripe for conversion to Islam, and Muslims conducting Da'wa have understood this. Seizing the southern Sudan and Darfur, taking back territory that the Arabs think of as Dar al-Islam and as part of their century-long push southward (in 1900 the Sudan was overwhelmingly non-Muslim), the Americans would thereby raise in the consciousness of many within the West of Arab massacres of blacks, of the Arab slave trade in black Africans, a trade that began, earlier, ended later (if in truth it ended entirely), and claimed many millions more victims, than did the European slave trade. And that might help immunize blacks in America, England, and France, from the siren-song of Islam as a vehicle for protest, an expression of alienaton. Indeed, it might draw black and white -Muslims together in solidarity. And as it is certain that that referendum -- or is it our position that "democracy" is good for Iraq but unacceptable for blacks in the Sudan? -- will lead to independence for the southern Sudan and Darfur together, and the Sudanese, and behind them the Egyptiains with their eyes on intimidiating Ethiopia (and preventing its use of Nile headwaters for irrigation purposes), will be foiled. And that too is a good thing.
There is so much more that can be done. Putting Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a postage stamp, inviting her to the White House, consulting with the growing number of apostates from Islam -- why not invite Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali to address Congress, instead of shunning these people, and taking advice insteady from deeply misleading soi-disant "moderate" Muslims is another possiblity.
And while all this is going on, announce a wartime policy on energy. Steadily increasing gasoline taxes. Subsidies to Amtrak (bring back Mr. Gunn before he retires to Nova Scotia) and encouragement of rail travel everywhere. Subsidize mass transit -- do not insist that it pay for itself, because the real cost of gasoline, and therefore of everything associated with the use of cars and trucks, is not revealed in its current price -- because the money spent on oil is not merely an economic transaction, but goes to pay our enemies, who do not wish us well, and many of whom long for, and work toward, our destruction. It is not merely a matter of economics. And put a stop to all this ideological labelling whereby, for some damn reason, people who call themselves "conservatives" must scoff at solar and wind energy, and those who call themselves "liberals" must automatically get hysterical about nuclear power plants. It is all necessary. And finally, try to figure out ways for people to pursue happiness that are less energy-intensive. Less drag racing and snowmobiles, more chess sets and reading. In other words, better educate people to find ways of entertaining themselves that are not so linked to the production of, and payment for, oil from sinister producing states.
I'll stop there. I timed myself on this posting. It took about 4 minutes. The Administration is currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars to do something about the Jihad. Tens of thousands of people are employed running around manning Al-Hurra and Al-Sawa (both wastes of money given their current staffs and directors), so-called counter-terrorism strategists, and so on. Millions, hundreds of millions, of man-hours. Can't they read Elie Kedourie and Philip Ireland and Gertrude Bell on Iraq? Did it have to be months into the actual Iraq War before Bush even realized how important the Sunni-Shi'a split was? Or perhaps still does not realize?
How many "Brownies" in charge of how many FEMAS do we need to endure? How much unnecessary waste of American soldiers' lives? How much unnecessary expenditure, when cunning will do what money cannot do? How long must we continue to think, like schoolgirls, that the whole wide world is full of people who are basically nice, if only we cure their "poverty" and give them a bastardized form of "democracy"? And if George Bush cannot stop comparing the Iraqis to the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, and dares to asismilate the centuries of political thought, connected to a view of the individual's worth and dignity, that is completely lacking in Islam, I am going to scream -- and so will tens of millions of others. It is bad enough that he doesn't understand Islam or Iraq. But not to understand real democracy, or American history, or the greatest collecdtion of political geniuses in Western history, the Framers of the Constitution -- that is unforgivable.
American -
In addition to low threshold for BS, I have a low threshold for cut & paste.
Here's a public presentation of the Pragmatic Project:
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1716/MR1716.pdf
----------------
Behind the scenes it is no doubt a much more devious and manipulative plan. And less concerned about "making nice" with the islamic world. We're gonna mind-f-ck 'em.
You can bet that main strategists in this war are psychologists, psychiatrists, and propagandists. The military is just used to secure the environment, threaten belligerents and remove obstacles. And give negative reinforcement to the jihadi wannabes.
Hello all,
Shame I missed this interesting topic. In essence though does this mean (hypothetically speaking) that you won't allow me in.
Morning Naseem!
You are always welcome. However I think this thread has been beat to death...
Hugh,
"at least as rational, and well-founded, as the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction"
I felt that these words were casting doubt on saddam's possession of WMD. I was not disputing the issue of the US getting out of Iraq now or staying.
I do believe that Iraq under saddam possessed WMD, although with the resources at my disposal I can't prove it. I do agree with you on most points. For instance, drawing the world's attention to the long-ongoing mass murder and enslavement in Sudan. This is a glaring example of the hypocrisy of the "human rights" movement in the West and throughout the world, and of many governments as well, since it has been going on, off and on, since 1956, since Sudan became independent. This genocidal war is also a jihad of course. The moral corruption of the UN, EU, etc. is exemplified by neglect of the Sudan as a humanitarian, human rights issue.
Now, getting back to Geo W Bush and WMD, it seems to me that Bush and his administration are neglecting the strong possibility that Iraq's WMD program was moved to Syria. It seems that he gave up too easily on the WMD issue. This is cavalier disregard for future peace and for the welfare of his own people. Now, as to dealing with the WMD in Syria, I do not feel that there is the need for a ground war. If the Syrian exiles in the West and the electronic and satellite intelligence at US disposal can locate the WMD and WMD facilities, then they can and should be destroyed with an air attack. Further, after the latest murder in Lebanon [Tweini], Syria has a weaker position in public opinion, since he is now being accused even on CNN and BBC by fellow Arabs. If Bush is serious about WMD . . . .