Muslims target Christians in Nigeria; Christians respond -- and AP reports on "anti-Muslim riot"

I can´t accept any violent answer but I know that the pastors and priests will be asking for calm, nevertheless the imans are preaching violence everyday.

"...LAGOS, Nigeria - Christian mobs rampaged through a southern Nigerian city Tuesday,..."

Well then: It must be those evil Christians!

reported by AP

Question: AP stands for Arab Press, NO?

OT

Hitchens finally speaks out. This is a good article -- and he's asking for your support

http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/fr/rss/

Get over there and show you care.

Sorry about the link. Here it is again.

Hitchens speaks out

A report I read yesterday stated a Muslim mob caught one man (Christian I assume) and set him on fire with a necklace - a tire put around the victims neck and set on fire. Someone please remind me - it's a 'religion of peace' isn't it.

A report I read yesterday stated a Muslim mob caught one man (Christian I assume) and set him on fire with a necklace - a tire put around the victims neck and set on fire. Someone please remind me - it's a 'religion of peace' isn't it.

Nigeria isn't the only place:

Eight hurt in Egypt clash

"Eight Egyptians have been injured in clashes between Muslims and Coptic Christians in a village south of Cairo."

"It reportedly followed Muslim anger over the construction of a community centre by the local Christian minority."

"Muslim residents accused the Christians of seeking to turn the centre into a church."

"One Christian was killed and several other people wounded in violence that broke out in the southern Nile city of Luxor when Muslims protested that Christians were building a church without authorisation."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5D6E69E5-BA02-41E2-95A6-309EAF8D7618.htm

So, open warfare has started. What are the odds that the US and europe will help their fellow christians when the muslims start making even bigger and more violent riots against the infidel dogs that dare to defend themselves? My guess is that they will be condemned and abandoned.

Mob rule is never good. Emotions are released that are not susceptible to control through reason. And it's too easy for the mob to be manipulated to extremes of behavior that the participating individuals would never engage in on their own.

Is the Western press now being governed by a mob mentality, one in which principles of fair, balanced reporting are being subverted and manipulated to extremes of accommodation? Is the press setting up a double standard for reporting? Are they, as a mob, cowering under the fear of being attacked, either physically or through public condemnation, for simply providing a fair, even comment on the events of the day.

If so, shame on the "free" press.

This story as it has developed over the past week illustrates once again the capacity for Islam's followers to take a non-violent situation and make the transition to violence. Someone criticizes or mocks Islam, Muslims get violent and kill, then the non-Muslims respond to that violence in retaliation. Islam has been initiating cycles of violence like this since its inception.

We should also keep in mind in this case, whereas Muslims initially had potential recourse to various non-violent options in response to the cartoons, the Christians living in Nigeria probably do not have access to any justice. This doesn't justify the Christians' violent response, but it must be kept in mind that their options are limited because they are Christians living in a Muslim-dominated country.

Objectively, AP is pro-jihad. My confidence is high on that conclusion, based on years of careful nit-picking.

See, I told you they woudln't take this shit and not respond... The civil war looms close.

The Ibos have never forgotten how they were slaughtered and deliberately starved in the last conflagration in Nigeria.

A divide will take place soon, Christians in the South and muslims in the North. Or it may lapse into a low level civil war.

That is also what is in the offing for us here in the West.

As I've posted several times, Milosovitch must have Mona Lisa smile as he sits in his cell in Netherlands and contemplates the situation in Europe.

Dr Reid said “modern terrorists were “unrecognisable “ compared to past enemies because they revelled in mass murder, inflicted pain on the innocent, used terror as a weapon and were unconstrained by law” (Daily Mail 21/2/06)

Dr Reid went on to say “the enemy fought as much as we fought and by and large accepted the same conventions as we did, today’s most dangerous enemy, the terrorist does not”(Daily Mail 21/2/06)

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

John Reid is Secretary of Defence.

PS
John Reid was comparing Al-Qaeda to the Nazis.

"So, open warfare has started. What are the odds that the US and europe will help their fellow christians when the muslims start making even bigger and more violent riots against the infidel dogs that dare to defend themselves? My guess is that they will be condemned and abandoned."

ExpatriateDK - You are correct. We abandoned them long ago.

DP111-

In keeping with these types of blurry headlines, shouldn't we call "Nazis", in the future: "anti-anti-Nazis" to keep the issue as confused as possible?

Over every main stream editor's desk:

Anything done by Muslims is righteous indignation.

Anything done in response is Islamophobia.

A few years ago an organised Hindu pogrom took the lives of about 3000 Muslims in Gujarat. The proximate cause was the burning of a train full of Hindu pilgrims, in which about 130 Hindus died. Although there has been a lot of hand-wringing since, it is noticeable that after the Hindus showed that they too can run amok, the number of attacks on Hindus has since markedly declined. The Muslims understand deadly random force, and until the state can provide security for Christians organised mayhem is the way to go.

Ivan posated: Muslims understand deadly random force, and until the state can provide security for Christians, organised mayhem is the way to go.

Sadly that is what is being forced on the rest of humanity. That is what muslims do- they reduce everyone to their level. Civilised people eventually lose their control and revert to what muslims understand.

Islam and muslims corrupt everything they come in contact with.

In the context of Britain's war with the mad mahdi in Sudan, Churchill wrote

"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . . The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization—elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise—here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword."

profitsbeard

gandald at

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

correctly analyses the situation.

John Reid was couching his language in politico-speech. It is not Al-qaeda but islam itself that he was tangentially referring to.

Falling Prophet - the Hitchens piece is awesome.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1470584,00.html

It's OT I suppose but it's about muslim apostates and what they go through.

Sir Archimedes: "Islam has been initiating cycles of violence like this since its inception."

DP111: "That is what muslims do- they reduce everyone to their level. Civilised people eventually lose their control and revert to what muslims understand."

Someone needs to rewrite the lyrics to John Lennon's famous anthem of peace:

"Imagine there's no Islam
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no taqiyya too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one."

Unfortunately, I'll have to leave the rest of the revision to someone more imaginative than myself..

Archimedes posted :

Someone criticizes or mocks Islam, Muslims get violent and kill, then the non-Muslims respond to that violence in retaliation. Islam has been initiating cycles of violence like this since its inception.

Once non-muslims respond with violence and muslims start to get the worse of the exchanges, you will see a remarkable and miraculous change in the speeches of the imams and the muslim leaders. All of a sudden they will start to plead for calm. They will say things such as "there are hotheads in every religion" and other such, just to have the moral upper hand. The half-baked and virtually semi-literate MSM, will as usual, fall for this. What happened prior to the cycle of violence will be forgotten, and the imams will then be on TV practising Dawa.

There are no innocent bystanders in this war - not on the muslim side most certainly, apart from toddlers.

The moderates and the Jihadis are working towards the same goal, and each takes advantage of the work of the other. After each terrorist outrage, you will find the moderate muslim moaning about "islamophobia", "backlash", and at the same time issueing threats (and incitement), that if this or that special preference is not granted to muslims, it will make the angry young men even more angry and frustrated.

Islam is the most pernicious ideology to have infected the human population. It has outlasted every other vile creed by a long way, and that is proof enough of the extremely serious nature of the threat we all face.

One way to stop this ideology is to confine it to one region - dar ul islam, and then hope that it works its way out. The survivors, in the metaphorical sense, will have been immunised.

From a Reuters report, Rome, some time around now

The Vatican has protested in “the strongest possible terms” against the publication in paperback of Dan Brown’s bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code. Cardinal Loopi, of the Office of the Defence of the Faith, condemned the book for defaming Catholicism and, in its suggestion that Jesus Christ was married, of heresy. “We demand that the book be destroyed and that the author be punished,” said Loopi, “otherwise we cannot be held responsible for how Catholics throughout the world may react.

Excerpt from a speech by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor

Merkel: “The affront to the honour of the one true Church is in fact an affront to the worship of God, and to the seeking of truth and justice, and an affront to all the prophets of God. Obviously, all those who harm the honour of the one true Church . . .”

Crowd: “Death to Dan Brown.

Death to Dan Brown.

Death to Dan Brown.

Death to Dan Brown.”

You gotta to read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2049788,00.html

It seems that the major papers in Britain are taking turns in lambasting islam.

Day 1 - The DT

Day 2 - The Times

Day 3 - The Daily Mail or the Express.

Then back again. Occasionally, even the Guardian and the Independent have a trenchant piece on islam.

Nigeria's Christians back Muslims

An umbrella Nigerian Christian body based in the majority Muslim north has condemned the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Now they realize that it was the wrong move, as their appeasement has been interpreted as weakness. Indeed, the cartoons are used to further the goal of turning Nigeria into an Islamic state. The Nigerian Anglicans statement includes the following statement.

From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/22010.html

So what is new?

"Sir Archimedes"

Carolyn, thanks for knighting me. What does that make you, Queen Caroline? Lady Caroline? Anyways, now that we're all flattering each other, nice poem...

...and Sir DP111, thanks for all those links.

I checked this link, and the article is not entitled "Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly". Did they change the title since this was posted, or am I misunderstanding your implication? The linked article is entitled "Sectarian Mobs in Nigeria Kill 24" -- more vague, but less distorted that what you're suggesting...

The first sentence is also at variance with what you've quoted here:

You quote:

"LAGOS, Nigeria - Christian mobs rampaged through a southern Nigerian city Tuesday, burning mosques and killing several people in an outbreak of anti-Muslim violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend."

The linked article says:

"LAGOS, Nigeria - Christian and Muslim mobs rampaged through two Nigerian cities Tuesday, killing at least 24 people in violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend."

Big difference! Didn't anyone in the 27 previous postings go to the link and read what was actually published??? This post should be reviewed, and perhaps this isn't the best example you could use at JW...

The story about media bias is all important however, and despite this possible mistake by JihadWatch, there are MANY examples of preposterous anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli and pro-Islamist pro-Muslim bias in the wires of UPI, AP, and Reuters...

Here is an interesting analysis of media bias in reporting about the Middle East by Reuters in 2003... It's well worth a gander:

http://inhonor.net/articles/middleeast_readings_fset_israel_arabs_palestinians.php?a_url=http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Study_Reuters_Headlines.asp&pgTitle=Study%202%20-%20Reuter%20Headlines%20Biased

Some examples of the rampant bias the investigator found in Reuters feed:

"Israeli Troops Shoot Palestinian in W.Bank"
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinian named as victim; described in active voice.

vs.

"New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce" (July 1)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israeli not named as victim; shooting described in passive voice.

It's a fascinating exploration of the use of active and passive voice, verb selection, placement of subject etc. to slant the headlines almost always in an anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian way... It's well worth a read in the context of this particular story... and well worth remembering the subtle ways the Press infuses coverage with subtle doctrinaire pro-terrorist subtleties.

jsla,

That first article has been changed. "Sectarian mobs..." article is modified compared to what Robert has, and appears to have been posted later (if both Robert's post and AP publication are time-stamped ET).

I noticed that too.

It was initially anti-cartoon (not anti-christian) riots when christians were being killed. Now it is anti-muslim
riots when christians are retaliating. Please be fair.

It seems that the major papers in Britain are taking turns in lambasting islam.

That's rather unfair/hopeful (delete as applicable, depending on your point of view). They are, for the most part, careful to say that it is Radical Islam not Islam as such of which they disapprove.

The Daily Telegraph today has this from Anton La Guardia, its Diplomatic Editor:

Pentagon papers offer insight into al-Qa'eda's hidden world of terror

Several of the documents apparently speak of failure:

Abu Huthayfa highlights a recurring obsession of the jihadi movement: its failure to win popular support and overthrow any Arab regime.

The Telegraph is also running a leader following up on this. They recommend the conclusions of a West Point study of these papers and say:

... the writings they have studied demonstrate that the invasion of Iraq has helped to radicalise the Muslim world and thus push it towards the arms of the extremists.

They suggest:

America should avoid direct, large-scale military action in the Middle East, relying instead on surrogates and operating behind the scenes to turn Muslim opinion against the jihadis.

Interestingly, although the avoidance of "direct, large-scale military action" has been something of a theme for those interested in 4GW, some of whom have recommended a "humble" grand strategy, the Telegraph leader speaks rather of returning to the strategy of "Nato during the Cold War". It seems an odd parallel for the Telegraph to draw in many ways.

BTW, it's not just the AP, nor yet just much of the media, that are biased.

Academia also has much to be ashamed of. See this article in yesterday's City Journal.

• [professor was] an unrepentant domestic terrorist who regretted that he "didn’t do enough" bombing during his youth and, ruminat[ed] on whether he’d "use bombs against the U.S. in the future."
• professor ... told whites that they could help the black cause "by dying," asserted Jews knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance, and declared that they, along with white people, are "gonorrhea in costume."
• professor .... raised funds for the terrorist [organization] Islamic Jihad [and] was caught on tape uttering, "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death."
• education instructor ... required her students to screen Fahrenheit 9/11 a week before the 2004 presidential election
• criminology professor['s] final exam asked students to "Make the case that George Bush is a war criminal."
• promoting of many radical professors "far beyond" their level of academic achievement and letting them "teach subjects outside [their] professional qualifications and expertise for the purpose of political propaganda."

ONITSHA, Nigeria (Reuters) -- Revenge attacks against Muslims killed at least 20 people in the southeastern Nigerian city of Onitsha on Wednesday after days of anti-Christian violence killed dozens in the mainly Muslim north.

This is from CNN's World News website.

This is amazingly balanced. The story does, however, go on to blame the violence on poverty, government, etc.

Still waiting for the MSM to clearly identifiy muslim insanity as the culprit.

Again, showing Muhammad with his head as a ticking bomb seems to be the most accurate portrayal of the man ever made. Muslim reactions show that I am right.

Notice the use of active verbs for the actions of the Christians ("Christian mobs rampaged"), but the use of the 'passive voice' ("30 churches were burned down" etc.) for what happened to the Christian churches and lives. It's a subtle technique to slant media coverage. The passive voice 'hides' or obscures the ones who did the mischief.

Yojimbo
Thanks for the link. It is not a conventional DT leader but is offering ana nalysis of teh what some startegic thinkers have wreitten,

I like this though

The alternative strategy, perhaps to be adopted once coalition forces have substantially reduced their presence on the Tigris and Euphrates, is reminiscent of that followed by Nato during the Cold War.

Chiefly as this would require a halt of immigration from muslim countries, just as we did not allow millions of card carrying communits to immigrate from the Warsaw pact nations.

Revenge is the only solution for the thired world Christians for survival,as the western Christians will never ever venture to come to their resque,unlike the Muslims. There is no Christian brotherhood,as in the case of Muslim Brotherhood. See ,for the cartoon controversy,the whole world's Muslims banded together to loot,kill,and destroy Christians,and their property.(Thoug there is no connection of Cristianity)
I really appricate the black Christians of Nigeria for having taken a bold step of retaliation for the killing of 976 Christians for the offence,they have not commited-Cartoon controvercy. These Black Christians slashed out 98 Muslims,when they attacked them,and even destroyed their Mosques,in retaliation of the hoolignaism they met in the hands of Muslims.
Seeing the anger of Christians for the first time, these Muslims fled the scene,fearing for their lives.
The West must learn one lesson from these Nigerian Christians:
Retaliation in the same kind only keep the Muslims from their commiting attrocities in the West.
Turning the other cheek will never ever work with Muslims.In fact,they take it as our weakness,and do more and more harm,as they know we will not retaliate
Even Jesus,who taught us about the "Turning the other cheek",also demonstrated that,when turning the cheek fails to work,retaliate-as he did in the Synagauge, when the greedy merchants ,occupying,and poluting God's place,and refusing to vacate,he took a leash (Whip) to drive away these hooligans.
When Sep 11 ,and London7/7 happened,if the public repaid them in the same coin,will they ever venture it again in our country?
Jesus said'"render unto Czesar,what is Cezesr's and render unto God ,what is God's." The real meaning is,"turning the cheek is for certain people,and repaying violance in the same coin, is for certain people. The Islamists come in the second catagory.