There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists.
It is interesting to note that this is immediately classified as a "faith-hate attack," while the international jihad plot that hoped to murder thousands of people by downing ten transatlantic planes for the express purpose of terrorizing the alleged enemies of Islam is not so perceived. In the latter case, government and law enforcement officials vie with one another to be the first to exonerate Islam and the Muslim community from any responsibility for the plot or for "faith-hate" in general. But the same solicitude is not offered to non-Muslims. This attack will instead be used as yet another indication of endemic British "racism" and "xenophobia," not to mention "Islamophobia."
"Probe into arson attack on mosque," from the BBC, with thanks to Jimbo:
Police are investigating an arson attack on a mosque in Chester.Detectives are treating the fire as a faith-hate attack but claim it is too early to say if it is in response to Thursday's anti-terror arrests.
Accelerant was put through the door of the mosque on Clifton Drive shortly before midnight on Thursday.
The blaze, which caused superficial damage, was quickly extinguished and although people were inside at the time, no-one was injured.
The beeb TV and radio news channels and have spent all day canvassing the views of any Muslim they can get near a microphone, especially young Muslim men. It never occurs to them to ask anyone else's view on what it feels like to live in the same country as such murderous loonies and what they think of the community that produces and harbours these people.
But, of course. CAIR has already issued warnings of a "backlash" on its website. Let's see...when will the first brick be thrown, in the middle of the night, at a mosque in Anywhere, USA, bringing the FBI, Justice Dept. and politicians to the microphones to wring their hands about the self-fulfilling backlash. Yes, take as many law enforcement agents off terrorism watches, border patrols, and put them in front of mosques. That's the plan, Sam, according to Muslim playbook. Watch it happen, soon.
There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists.
.. from the post above.
Have to respectfully, disagree. There is a LOT to distinguish from the Jihadists:
- Jihadists start trouble. Surely, the one who starts is the real cause, not the one who responds.
- Jihadists target innocent civilians, while those opposed to Jihad are just that.. opposed to Jihad and Jihadists.
- Not responding to Jihad amounts to playing dead before dying.
- Gone are the days of playing the 'high moral-ground' card. As we have seen over the years, instead of respectfully bowing to 'high moral-ground', Jihadists, who have no moral-ground, disregard the 'high moral=ground' in restraint and respond with more Jihad.
One needs to recall India's Lal Bahdur Shashtri's response to Pakistan's aggression in 1969: 'We will respond a brick, with a stone'. And also, Abe Lincoln's immortal words: 'Be gentle with the gentle, tough with the tough.'
I am having an extra Scotch with my pork chop dinner tonight.........
Seeing who profits most from an attack on a mosque I wonder who carried out the attach which strangely didn't do much damage.
A/ The BNP who are well aware of the media war the Muslims are involved in or...
B/ They did it themselves, of course, like suicide attacks and lying (read about taqiyya) it is against Islam to do such a thing.
Who has heard about sustained attacks on Churches in the UK?
http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.873554.0.church_and_muslim_leaders_unire_to_beat_vandals.php
-----------------------------------------
"Coun Salim Mulla, of Queen's Park ward, who chaired the meeting and has condemned the attacks, said: "The response from my mosque and the two others where the matter was discussed was strong con-demnation of the youths ."
------------------
Taqiyya.
------------------
Asif Mahmud, 35, from Bastwell, who attended the meeting said: "The attack wasn't racist as such, they were kids who have reacted to Fr Parkinson, who challenged them.
"This is a prime site for anti-social behaviour."
----------------------------------------
Taqiyya again.
An attack by Muslims on a church isn't racist but an attack on a Mosque is even before the motive has been found out. No wonder this country is in such a terminal mess.
I disagree with the editorial above. True, one doesn't condone vigilantesm, but 'there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists'? What they did doesn't come close to what Muslim governments, let alone thugs, do to Infidel temples worldwide, be it Joseph's tomb in Nablus, or a 100 year old Hindu temple in Kuala Lumpur.
In the absense of any government crackdown on Jihad in the UK, such arsonists should improvise and do what's possible to level mosques in as many areas as possible, and reconquer as much of the United Sultanate of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as possible.
Funny I was watching the local news yesterday in Vancouver, BC, Canada and was not surprised how long it took for a story to air about how local Muslims feel they will be targeted.
This is part of our global problem, the Muslims in every community always scream victim first without questioning or condemning those in their midst that bring this distrust on them. It is their problem to deal with if they are true moderates, however as the poll in Britain yesterday stated that 90% of British Muslims hold their religion as more important than their country. This is the root of the problem, whether they are actively with these terrorist groups or not, they certainly agree with what they do, and should thus be scrutinized carefully.
This brings me to the case of the mosques that were attacked, I believe that it is more likely that one of their own torched the mosque than an outsider. These people have no problem doctoring photos for propaganda reasons, they have no problem making up false stories of attacks by Israeli gun boats on a picnicing family on the west bank, why would they not do this?
Unfortunately I believe that this will continue as a propaganda tool and the western media as usual will eat it up and subsequently keep the sheep in the dark.
Niv
At some point, violence must be met with violence, and cultures who forment violence must be destroyed. We can't know if the people in this particular Mosque lent material support to Jihadis, but they did lend their moral support, in that Islam preaches Jihad, and nowhere are Muslims of any stripe being clear what they mean when they condemn "terror", whatever that is supposed to mean. This is a lesson Israel has forgotten. Witness them floundering, a month after militarily challenging Hezbollah, about whether they should launch a real ground invasion. Now the UN is cooking up a ceasefire that addresses none of their concerns, and they look likely to be jawboned into acquiescence. Why did they not fight with all their strength at the beginning?
What are infidel British people to do? The progressive stifling of their nation gets worse and worse, as they sacrifice their flag, their culture, and now their physical security, and meanwhile Muslims shuffle along like they bear no responsibility. It is HIGH TIME that we stop prattling like a bunch of fools about "terrorism". It is Jihad, it is war, it is guerilla groups fighting guerilla wars as they have been, since time immemorial. Targetting civillians is part and parcel of war. Our enemies have no compunction about doing so. Since we do, the wars drag on endlessly, and we appear to be the villian, Israel appears the villain, the British law enforcement authorities, the CIA, the zookeepers at Guantanamo, and so many others. Read Machiavelli's "The Prince" and see what he says about this issue. A quick, ruthless war, the doing of evil in a short, sharp burst, is the path to decisive victory and a secure peace, predicated first on fear, then respect, and then comity. The number of deaths will be high initially, but over time it is the most humane way to deal with the problem. It is akin to cutting off a gangrenous limb, rather than shaving off a little at a time, which is far more painful and also allows the patient to die.
The true doctrine of war is lost on the west, and we cannot handle the challenge of the Jihad. I feel sorry for the British Muslims who feel frightened because their Mosques are being attacked, but I cannot completely condemn the urge to do so. British people would be justified, at this point, in simultaneously destroying every Mosque in the country; would that their government were capable of such decisive action.
Muslims must understand that their lives are at risk; no the imaginary risk that we hear about, the shibboleth of "backlash". Would-be Jihadis need to know that they will bring, not suspicion, but doom, upon their communities. Then this Jihad nonsense, the hysteria from Muslims on the sideline, and the confusion of people in the west will end.
Of course, one could take the view that mosques are de-facto military indoctrination centers, fortresses, and weapons storage depots. Alternatively, one could take the view that they are sacred religious centers, and should be treated with exactly the same regard shown by muslims for other sacred religious buildings like Christian churches, Indian temples, and Jewish synagogues. Either way ...........
Infidel33,
I am advocating, at this late date, for the end to the division between military and civillian. It hurts me to say this, but I do not see a good option anymore in dealing with Islam. The threat of total annihilation must at some point in war be raised. We certainly do not see Muslims, anywhere, making this false division. A little of their own medicine and we'll see where the global Jihad is headed, to victory or the dustbin of history.
Robert is a public figure. I am not, and I can afford to be completely honest. Frightfuly honest.
To say that "they are all the same" is obviously unfair, definitely dangerous and extreme, but I am not so sure that such acts of vigilantism are entirely counterproductive. Given the level of state hipocrisy, alienation and incompetence that borders treason and that endangers the lives of living (and not yet living) citizens, I am sorry but I can no longer say that such acts are counterproductive, at least from a theoretical point of view.
Where are the western countries that have seen more signs of Islamic takeovers, lobbying, etc? Exactly those that have spineless pacifist populations (read the news and you will find what countries I am talking about).
One American thinker from the days of the American Revolution wrote that the only people that he hated more than those that will pick a fight for anything, are those that are unwilling to fight at all. The later will only be free if men (and women) better than themselves are willing to put their necks on the line for them. A few people sacrifice themselves for the nation while the majority sits at home in the couch. In Shakespeare's "Henry V", the imaginary (?) but nevertheless brilliant St. Crispin's speech just before Azincourt took place is a clear example that what went on in 1415 is what has gone since one man decided to defend his cave from a wild animal instead of fleeing like the rest of his companions.
In a modern society, we gave up our right for self-defense because the government assumes that obligation towards its citizens. No matter how regretful those incidents may be (fortunately no one was hurt) the fact that such incidents happen in a modern society reflects the failure of the authority and competence of that very government to protect its citizens. That may open someone's eyes, though it probably will not.
On a diferent level these actions (while placing ordinary law abiding Muslims in a very though spot) manage to show the radical Muslims that maybe their notions of Islamic imperialism are backfiring onto their community, and that those spineless infidels actually have spines.
Five years ago I would object against such blind violence. Right now, I am more restrained in my protests - for starters because giving the level of hair-pulling, yelling, "death to America and Israel" and arabist lobbying, I am not so sure as I was that "ordinary Muslims" are as inocent as I initially thought.
The Media is the problem.
They show Walthamstow with a police helicopter overhead as if the Muslims at prayer are being observed by Big Brother but fail to explain why they - camera crews and photographers - are hounding people going to the mosque.
It is a duplicitous game. The Media say that Muslims are persecuted, feel anxious, and are alienated - but it is not the public doing that - it is the media.
Then the media get the most extremist loudmouth on TV or radio to say something provocative as if it is mainstream just to irritate the public at large.
It is an attempt to sir a pot and keep it on the boil in the hope of getting some action. It is a familiar trick. I have seen it first hand - over Bradford riots and over the shooting of WPC Sharon Beshinevsky - the hordes of journalists and camera crews then paint a completely surreal picture of events and locality which makes those familiar wonder if they have 'false perceptions' of what they know.
The media works to a script and they try to force-fit facts into their narrative. It is a very bad habit, but we see it time and time again - in Northern Ireland, in New Orleans, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and everywhere they have an agenda.
From the news story:
"Accelerant was put through the door of the mosque on Clifton Drive shortly before midnight on Thursday....The blaze, which caused superficial damage, was quickly extinguished and although people were inside at the time, no-one was injured."
What are Muslims doing in a mosque at midnight -- on a Thursday?
August22 --
"The muslim culture only respects and fears violence."
Half true: they "respect" violence in the sense that a tiger or hyena respects it, but being presented with counter-violence will not soften their savage nature. As for their "fear", that is ridiculous. They obviously don't fear violence -- violence is an integral part of their psyche and culture, and has been for centuries.
"They detest weakness in whomever they deem the enemy - especially those they derisively view as infidels..."
True; but Muslims detest Infidels no matter what they do.
"The more we appease them, the more they view us as with contempt."
True; but there are different ways to not appease them. I.e., there are different ways to fight them.
"The more they view us with contempt, the more they want to exterminate us like insects."
False: this implies some kind of variability in their mentality of hate. They view Infidels with contempt no matter what, and they always have wanted to, and always will want to, subjugate Infidels (in order to use their slave labor and/or indentured servitude and talents in general, since Muslims have little talents), and kill all those who refuse to submit.
"History shows that if you give them some of their own medicine, they immediately back down."
This is only simplistically true, and not always so. Muslims may back down from assaults, but only because they have a shred of logic in them to realize when it is militarily expedient to back down and wait until they gather strength again.
"It is a cowardly culture by and large and can not take even the slightest bit of their own medicine."
Wrong. This is a common insult I have seen among Jihadwatchers, that "Muzzies are cowards!" It is patently untrue of the jihadists: they are the pathological opposite of cowards -- they run straight into swords, gunfire, blow themselves up in order to implement commando attacks, etc. Plus, the history of Islamic warfare, with their stupendous blitzkrieg attacks from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the first few centuries after Mohammed shows they are not to be minimized as warriors (even though today they suffer from backward thinking with regard to technology). Furthermore, Muslims generally come from societies that are saturated with daily violence -- whether at home, at the madrassa schools (where it is routine for children to be beaten), in their daily diet now of violent propaganda on tv, videos, sermons, etc.; in the cruel government criminal system; and in the regular riots, lynchings, small quasi-military flare-ups and outright military border conflicts that are endemic to the Muslim world and its encroachment on other cultures around the Third World. If we started behaving like them, they might be momentarily surprised -- "Gee, these PC multiculturalists are not wimps after all!" -- but they would quickly readjust and it would be, for them, bloody business as usual as they have known it for centuries.
"After all, what is the alternative?"
The alternative is for us to use violence wisely, not go off half-cocked and run amok -- like they do in their societies all the time.
"There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one."
I agree. Our most powerful weapon in self-defense against the continuing Islamic fascist assault on civilization is the truth. We need to work ceaselessly, as Robert so patiently does (and as his JW/DW crew do), to expose Mohammedan ideology for what it is. Any violence against mosques will undo his good works, and ours.
Far better it would be to publish the contents of the Friday sermons given in those mosques, and to broadcast what destructive, seditious, deceptive, and intolerant ideology is contained in the Muslim literature offered there to seduce Islam's unwary victims.
From what I have discovered about Islam so far, I have concluded that the "religion" referred to as Islam must be quarantined. It is not a religion, and its followers should not be given a pass on civilized behavior simply because of this false label.
Islamic immigration must be stopped. Mosques should eventually all be closed. These tasks have to be done through firm government action--by a government that knows it will be punished at the voting booth if it does not act to protect our civilization.
Together we must build the intellectual and legal groundwork for a quarantine of Islam. For that to happen, we need an "army" of properly informed citizens, citizens who will not be fooled by Islamic taquiyya, influenced by Islamic feigned victimhood, or cowed by Islamic threats.
This attack was a bad idea, regardless of your view on evicting Muslims from the West. Here is why. This attack will give Muslim lobbying groups (or their equivalent in the UK) reason to demand that the government pass new and "better" laws to protect Muslim places. This might possibly include censorship of criticism of Islam and prosecuton of those who criticise Islam.
The BBC is very pro-Islamic and will do whatever it can to promote Islam. Muslims will play this for all its worth; and with the BBC acting as Islam's proganda arm in the UK, they might even gain some sympathies from people who don't know better.
non-redneck,
Excellent point on censorship. In the global "total war" that Islam is waging against us all, the "legal front" is critical. The modammedans are pressing for every advantage, and making headway with every manufactured incident and pretext (like the famous cartoons). To win (that is, to survive!), we definitely need to defeat them in the legal arena.
"What are Muslims doing in a mosque at midnight?"
- these places are often used as doss houses for travellers passing through or newly arrived immigrants.
"If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists."
Robert is right on this one. We cannot lower ourselves to the enemy's level. It is one thing to adopt identical tactics toward the Muslims that they use on us as a matter of policy and to lash out individually with meaningless violence. Invididuals are justified in violence only in direct response to a threat to themselves or others. Acts of arson, such as this, will be used only deflect from the violent nature of Islam by giving their apologists something to point at as an argument for moral equivalence.
Also, every Muslim apologist will use this to deflect attention from the real terror and play the victim. Gullible liiberals will only be too happy to play the bleeding heart to the Muslim "victims".
Of course, it is also highly possible that Muslims set the fire to play the victim and divert attention from their own activities.
sounds like a reichstag stunt to me. After the arrests in Canada a bunch of mosques had their windows smashed with people inside. Yet no one could give a description. i think this is a ploy to gain sympathy and shift blame to society at large. If only society were not so racist they would feel wanted and would integrate. I am not falling for it.
What a shame the bloody thing wasn't burned to the ground!
Sorry, Robert, but I have to disagree with you this time. I reckon it's a rare example of a few members of the British public showing the sort of backbone that the political classes sadly lack.
I mean, what the hell else are the public meant to do?
It's quite possible the Muslims fire-bombed the mosque themselves. Fraudulent hate crimes are disturbingly common, as Michelle Malkin has written in a couple articles. Many Muslims have accepted the victim psychology (along with jihadism) put out by their corrupt leaders, and bad things happen as a result.
For a shockeroo, Google up Hate Crime Fraud and be prepared for your jaw to drop at the number of listings.
I’m becoming more of an emotivist by the day. Here’s how we’re distinguished from the jihadists:
We’re not muslim: let’s stop pretending that confict between groups is avoidable- pick a side.
Our belieft system permits their belief in their Satanic Arab supremacist belief system.
The failure of our system has been a too healthy dose of the golden rule, which allows them to come in to our countries and say what they want, incite hatred, and, because they don’t play by the same rules, exploit this tolerance. The one person in agreement with Robert on this board should work out an idea of morality that doesn’t follow the premise “we should be tolerant” to its logicallly absurd consequence that we tolerate those who don’t tolerate and actively murder; else we are going to be reduced to the anti-Semites, only in reverse toward Muslims.
Let’s at least not strike indiscriminately like they do- strike at the mosques where the suspects’ families attend, who are undoubtedly complicit in some way. The older members would have done the same, they’re just too tired. Cafeteria Muslims are a blessing.
I don't condone vigilantism BUT--and I do mean a big islamic style BUT--rather than sympathy all that comes to mind are the words of a Radiohead song:
"You do it to yourself, you do
And that's what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you and no-one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself"
August22,
"they are not used to being confronted by infidels in such a manner nor are they used to total warfare the likes of which only the west has ever implemented."
In the history of the West's interaction with Islam, there were many attacks on Muslims -- consider the Crusades: did that cause Muslims to shrink back and think, "wow, I respect them, I'm not going to continue expanding anymore!" ?
With Muslims, I don't think violence works as a deterrent: violence against them will only work as it would against an attacking robot that has no feelings: you work to disable and destroy the robot, you don't waste time trying to convince the robot to change its ways, or trying to make the robot afraid of you.
As for vigilante violence, I think it's complicated: it's good when it occurs to the extent that it shows we haven't completely lost our "rage and pride"; but it's not good if you think it's going to have any tactical or strategical effects on the enemy, other than causing them to re-route around your left flank.
Obviously non-Muslims could conceivably do anything. But every time the media catches a Muslim band of actual or potential mass murderers a conveninet fire or broken window which causes no damage or injury distracts the media. It happens every time, without exception. One possibility: kufr don't know backlash from childish vandalism. Second possibility: it's a media strategy by Muslims themselves.
remote control
You're right. Excluding the modern "imperialistic" period which is vilified in academia, Islam has always been the aggressor, mostly victorious, expansionsist, and unified enough to field huge numbers of soldiers willing to die for the cause. Only technology and a few lucky breaks kept Europe in the hands of Europeans.
A unified, punishing strategy hasn't been tried. The Crusades against Islam were nothing compared to the Crusades against fellow Christians, heretics, and Jews.
I'm squarely opposed to vigilanteism. However, as Ice Dragon has said, "An attack by Muslims on a church isn't racist but an attack on a Mosque is even before the motive has been found out."
Borrowing my approach from jihadist groups (CAIR comes quickly to mind) .. there is no proof that this attack was not done by a member of the ROP. There is only an assumption that something was done by an infidel. I'm not ordinarily so wary .. however, when it comes to Islam .. all bets for honesty being employed are off.
Remember the supposedly "desecrated by infidels" - but really desecrated by a member of the ROP - koran that stopped Amazon.com in its tracks (I always thought the 'desecration' was done in order to prevent the sales of unabridged English versions of that terror manuel , but who knows for sure?) ?
So, let's wait and see 'who done it' ...
Dana ... sorry, somehow I missed your post ... exactly my point. Thanks
Oh, and a fake attack (or a stupid arson) eats up law enforcement resources which could be used to find additional plotters of the big airline massacre.
For those in the UK, what page do you think this will be on The Independent tomorrow?
Ok, maybe not fron page as that is reserved for "Israel murders Lebanese civilians in terror attack", but somewhere.
I remember in the days after 7/7, they had a front page article on Islamophobia where some mosque has had a brick through a window. Not quite on a par with dozens of dead from the Islamic terror attacks, but never mind.
Turkish lawyer admits killing secularist judge
NEED TO CALM YOUNG MUSLIM HOTHEADS, SAYS UK COMMUNITY LEADER
Ummah News Links
It is not just the suicide bombers but Sudden Jihad Syndrome and attacks on churches. A continuous Jihadi activity that is ongoing. How long will the population stand by and wait for the authorities to take the appropriate action, and not just gloss over, while protecting the "good" name of islam.
A time will come when we realise that the authorities have broken their compact with society, and take whatever measures are necessary. They will be arbitrary as these things go. The fault though, of the ensuing mayhem due to vigilante action will be at the door of the authorities that strained the patience of the people.
TV/Remote
The crusades were a bad example - the only successful ones out of the 12 were the first crusade, where Jerusalem was captured, and to a limited extent, the third, where Tyre, Acre and Haifa were captured, but Jerusalem wasn't. Given that the crusades ended with the Saracen sides victorious, it's wrong to expect them to have retreated: one doesn't retreat when one is victorious.
A better example was the Mongols - when Chengiz Khan was returned the heads of his envoys, he responded with war, and ravaged Turkistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and his successors destroyed Baghdad, and went as far as Jerusalem. Their empire remained, and had they had a solid religion of their own that they were required to be loyal to, their successor empires, like the Ilkhanate, wouldn't have Islamized. But the underlying point remains - Muslims never tried getting back at the Mongols - to this day, Mongolia is less than 2% Islamic.
Similarly, the reason that Muslims are assertive in the Balkans are that they see an opening. During the Cold War, there were no attempts to Islamize Albania, Yugoslavia or any other former Ottoman terretories. Reason is that they knew that a whole lot of things could happen - from Soviets destroying their home countries to the KGB sending them to meet Allah.
August22's analysis is correct - They attack only when they outnumber their victims. They use that mob swarming tactic all over Europe today. They are known for running when the fight is more equal. The culture as a whole is cowardly also in that they prefer never to fight infidels until they have a large enough number to win by sheer force of attrition. They are cowardly in that they avoid face to face battles whenever possible. While they are trained to run blitzkrieg-kamikaze style attacks on their enemies, it's worth noting that they only do that when they think they have a good chance of winning. They wouldn't dare to do that if they thought there was a good chance of them being eviscerated. Why don't the Uygars in China carry out suicide attacks against the Chinese occupiers? They know that China wouldn't hesitate to nuke Urumqi, if required.
My only disagreement with August22 is that I don't think that terrorists specifically should be targeted. Instead, target innocent Muslims at random, and make it known that there is a heavy price that the ummah at large will have to fork out for their 'tiny-minority-of-extremist's-activities'. While the mosques do issue the most incendiary of statements, if their congregations started to feel the backlash of major elements of society at large, and were forced to take it out on the Imams, they'd be forced to take it down some notches. Keep at it until London becomes a lot more unpleasant for them than Lahore, and they are forced to decide whether they want to continue waging a Jihad in the UK, or simply move back to the relative comfort of Karachi.
While I cannot condone this arson attack on the mosque, I would beg that the world community and the Muslim community try to understand the rage of a people who have been told they deserve to die simply because they are non-Muslim Britons.
Great comment Kepha.
Whenever muslims commit terrorist atrocities like 7/7, or have banners in the streets saying "behead the infidels" or attack Jews or synagogues, the excuse always is "you've got to understand that muslims are angry at Lebanon, Israel",.... take your pick.
That is always the excuse that muslims use to "explain" their violence.
Well I think that the shoe should be on the other foot. We should be saying "Well you've got to understand that non-muslims are angry at the terrorist acts that muslims commit", to explain the rare occasions when mosques are burnt.
I'd love to hear that excuse being used by US for a change. YOU KNOW WE GET ANGRY TOO YOU KNOW.
wallyUK said:
"The beeb TV and radio news channels and have spent all day canvassing the views of any Muslim they can get near a microphone, especially young Muslim men. It never occurs to them to ask anyone else's view "
wallyUK, people around here are getting angry, the atmosphere is changing, lots of people do not trust or respect the media (MSM) any more either, but the main anger is towards the Muslims. The lies (taqiyya)don't work on everyone, lots of ordinary people see through it.
At some point, violence must be met with violence, and cultures who forment violence must be destroyed.
Even Abe Lincoln said: "Be gentle with the gentle, tough with the tough."
The true doctrine of war is lost on the west, and we cannot handle the challenge of the Jihad. I feel sorry for the British Muslims who feel frightened because their Mosques are being attacked....
Posted by: Quijybo at August 11, 2006 02:41 PM
Why are you sorry? If anything, West has been kind and tolerant, compared to the barbarism muslims have globally unleashed on non-muslims.
the Brits should simply deport all Paki muslims.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 11, 2006 07:36 PM
.. and save their hard-working, tax paying non-muslim citizens their lives.
If the government does not do its job then
the citizens have to take the law in their
hands.
Posted by: george_rem at August 11, 2006 03:04 PM
Not only that, the corrupt and defunct politicians and their parties need to be booted out, even tried for treasoan and jailed, else, those corrupt politicians, instead of standing up to Islamic terror, will turn their official force agsinat the hard-working, tax-paying citizens, as was the case with Dubya turning againat minutmen.
One poster above indicated that it was a shame that Muslims were not hurt in the attack on the mosque.
Another poster named Alert wrote the following in justification for attacking mosques and Muslims:
"Gone are the days of playing the 'high moral-ground' card. As we have seen over the years, instead of respectfully bowing to 'high moral-ground', Jihadists, who have no moral-ground, disregard the 'high moral=ground' in restraint and respond with more Jihad. One needs to recall India's Lal Bahdur Shashtri's response to Pakistan's aggression in 1969: 'We will respond a brick, with a stone'. And also, Abe Lincoln's immortal words: 'Be gentle with the gentle, tough with the tough.'"
Here's a blatantly racist statemen from VanBoehmond:
"the Brits should simply deport all Paki muslims"
And the most outrageous statement of all from a sack of sh*t named Pelayo.
"When an outraged citizen tosses a Molotov cocktail into a mosque, it ain't terrorism; its an attack on a military installation. I want to live, if fighting dirty means living, I fight dirty. Taking the high road in this battle will get us all killed".
Pelayo, is advocating for terrorist attacks on not just jihadists but all Muslims. Pelayo, like the other posters are animals with no humanity at all.
This is taking legitimate criticism of Islam and Muslims to a new level. There is no question that the UK has a particularly high volume of those who support Jihad. However, these people could be deported. Advocating their murder is senseless. What God are you accountable to Pelayo?
I would hope that the leadership of Jihad Watch and the intelligent posters here condemn Pelayo and the others who have gone this far.
Criticism and scrutiny of Muslims is necessary, along with monitoring and making the Jihadists life uncomfortable, but these comments are just plain evil.
Cheers
Thomas
A bit of qualification on this statement
"Pelayo, is advocating for terrorist attacks on not just jihadists but all Muslims. Pelayo, like the other posters are animals with no humanity at all".
I'm not referring to all of the posters here, but the ones I have quoted.
"I would hope that the leadership of Jihad Watch and the intelligent posters here condemn Pelayo and the others who have gone this far."
I don't have the time to condemn Pelayo; perhaps if Muslims stopped killing -- and trying to kill -- in so many places around the world, I might have a few minutes to spare.
"Pelayo, is advocating for terrorist attacks on not just jihadists but all Muslims. Pelayo, like the other posters are animals with no humanity at all".
I'm not referring to all of the posters here, but the ones I have quoted.
Posted by: Haidon at August 11, 2006 09:26 PM
Unlike yourself, Haidon, Pelayo is not an apologist for blood-thirsty, barbaric Jihadists.
CAIR-Canada is known for assigning guilt for Mosque vandalsim to infidels as Islamophobes, except Iraq is a classic example of Mosques being bombed by other Muslims seeking 'Revenge' for their Mosque being bombed, and thus the circle of violence among Muslms helps us purge the Earth of the useless cockroaches bent on hatred and violence.
I have seen Insurance fraud cases to by-pass restrictions on Commercial Zones where reno-permits aren't issued because of density and Utility demands for water and Hydro , a small controlled perceived 'Arson' attack will force
'repairs' via Insurance claims and not a Building Permit for the reno.
Tell-tail signs are the Mosques attacks
No security cameras
Minor damage
No alarms
Vague witness recounts of the event
Vandals never caught
No other structures in area attacked
Early a.m. attack while dark and no one to see
it
And to assure a valid claim, the Media and Police brought in and go public to find the elusive islamophobe to document the event for the Insurance Company or call the media back to label them a islamophobe and cry 'Racism".
The CAF has taken a stance on public radio that Arabs in canada support hezbollah as freedom fighters and 90%+ lebanese support hezbollah as well, tomorrow there will be another Pro-Terrorist Peace-march in Toronto and Montreal with Hezbollah flags and Hijab clad females with the Suicide bomber Jihad headbands that hamas member wear.
Because of this threat to canada and civilians , I hope Israel goes all the way and bombs these blood thirsty animals back to the stone-age so they don't have radios and TV to teach another generation to murder for Allah, the gloves are off and the CAF and CAIR are free to leave Canada if we offend them so much.
Trust is something you earn from others by your examples, Muslims want to by-pass that phase and try to fool us that islam means peace and the Quran teaches Love and forgiveness .
I see the UN now wants to repeat their mistakes again by using Observers to be peace-makers or shields for hezbollah's rocket launchers, is Kofi an idiot or what?
Lets see...ceasefire...UNIFIL sitting ducks....Hezbollah rearms....rockets fired from civilian areas....Hezbllah invades a UN Member State to kidnap or kill soldiers.... Israel responds to protect its civilians.... Kofi and UN condemn Israel's over-reaction and call for ceasefire....civilians die...more rockets from hezbollah....Muslims blame all socials ill on "the jews" .
Just keep your newspapers as templates and fill in the new dates when the next hezbollah attack occures.
preying on Peaceful Muslims
Gee, I sure stirred up a hornet's nest, but them hornets don't have stingers. Some people say outrageous things so that a response can be pryed loose. It brings the apologists out.
Haidon, Speaking of "humanity," I have seen some very old men being interviewed about events that happened when they were very young men. I don't remember a single one of them having any regrets for the vast numbers of enemy soldiers that they killed in WW2. What really brought the tears from the very old men's eyes, was the retelling of the stories of how their buddies died. Imagine crying over the death of someone you knew for only about a year; still crying sixty years later.
Haidon, let me tell you what is inhuman - Sitting on one's fat rear end and worrying about one's "humanity" while friends and countrymen are being murdered.
Alert, Thank you for your support.
Alert
I am not an apologist for Islam or jihad. I so more in a week fighting the murderous ideology WITHIN Muslim communities, than you could accomplish in your whole lifetime (while you sit behind your computer). I have a public track record in this regard. I often do this to my own peril. I have never made excuses for Muslims who commit terror, deny human rights or strive for the Caliphate, and have condemned them and teh verses in Islamic texts that foster it.
I'm sorry for being so patently unreasonable for not agreeing that random attacks on Muslims and mosques should occur. What you and others have advocated is tantamount to terrorism. And please do not even think of lecturing me on the Islam and terror. I have experienced terror on 9/11 and in Israel. I have lost loved ones and friends. So please spare me your frustration.
But its so easy for you to say such vile things. Afterall, you hide mehind an alias and a computer. A coward, who justifies destruction and murder on ALL Muslims.
This war needs to be fought on two fronts. With people like Robert and Hugh (even though I disagree with him most of the time) influencing policy that makes policy makers look at Islam. Teh second front working within Islam to allow people to either leave the religion, or work to reform it. The remaining are true enemies of all humanity. I fall into both camps. But make no mistake to win, you need both.
Cheers
Thomas
Beagle, Monte Cassino has been restored to its original beauty.
Pelayo
Why am I an apologist? Answer the question. I am simply stating that what you are advocating is tantamount to terrorism. Where in my statement did I "apologise" for Islamic terrorism? Re-read my statement.
Of course, we whould have no sympathy for those who wage war against them. They show no mercy. We should show none either. But this begs the questions are all Muslims "enemy soldiers" as you have implied? You are advocating attacks on Muslims (which would include women and children). This is also criminal. Perhaps you should be investigated.
Palestinians often make the same argument that you make. Because all Israelis are conscripted into the Services, even children are potential targets. (I say this with qualification because the Palestinian cause is not cause at all).
Cheers
Thomas Haidon
Beagle
I concur.
Beagle
I concur. "Mosques should not be considered any differently than bunkers or ammo dumps when they're used for jihad", with an emphasis on the last four words.
Cheers
I said, "When an outraged citizen tosses a Molotov cocktail into a mosque, it ain't terrorism; its an attack on a military installation."
Haidon assumes the Mosque is occupied.
At this stage in this "war" nothing of what I have said would be justifiable. What do we do in the latter stages of this war?
Let's see what we wake up to on August 23.
Haidon said, "And the most outrageous statement of all from a sack of sh*t named Pelayo."
No more comments from me tonight.
Haidon,
I really want to encourage a moderate form of Islam, true Islamic moderates, secularists, enlightenment types, but the heirarchy is inflexible, dogmatic, and dangerous. Fear keeps moderation in check. Innovation is a sin. Reason is discouraged. Until you read Muslims writing in other nations, using literary devices to avoid censure, it doesn't make much sense to an American, the fear that is.
The ayatollahs and imams need to be defanged in terms of secular power. Pat Robertson's opinion on Chavez, for example, wasn't a real danger to Chavez. Rushdie is the archetype for the nightmare which arises in Islam, but hardly alone.
I've read some great Muslims on the Internet but they rarely mention going to mosques except to take pictures of the scenery. It's a real problem when Wahhabis are churning out the new generation of imams. I could list problems for hours. It's solutions...
Thomas,
Don't understand your 'Two-front' mumbo-jumbo, but this is what I do understand. In intimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership, you dislayed the cowardly Jihadi-apologist tendency, not a strong Jihadi-resistance spirit. If you have a public track record of fighting the murderous ideology, you would know who to stop, who to support and who to leave alone.
Come to think of it, I wonder what kind of a track-record you refer to, but that is another subject.
I am sorry Pelayo, but when you make outrageous statements expect outrageous, and sometimes unintelligible response. I belong to a progressive mosque in Wellington, New Zealand. We have an Ulaema Council that has unqualifiedly condemned Hamas, Hizbollah, Al-Qaeda and all other terror groups. The community here did not riot in the streets over the Muhammad cartoons and accepted that it is a freedom of speech issue, full stop. Our scholars have also challenged the traditional orthodox apostasy laws in Islam.
While we have some issues, we are progressive. And of course, I find it upsetting when someone advocates destroying my place of worship, particularly when our members arent glorifying or preaching terrorism and are in fact making the case for secularism.
Cheers
Thomas
Alert
You wrote: "Don't understand your 'Two-front' mumbo-jumbo, but this is what I do understand. In intimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership, you dislayed the cowardly Jihadi-apologist tendency, not a strong Jihadi-resistance spirit. If you have a public track record of fighting the murderous ideology, you would know who to stop, who to support and who to leave alone".
Two front mumbo jumbo? Its simple, non-Muslims need to keep applying serious pressure on Muslims, and truly moderate Muslims need to work within Islam to effectuate change, in order for Muslims who want to leave can leave (without fear), or help in teh reform efforts. Those who remain are the enemy. In order to defeat Jihad these two must occur simultaneously.
So, let me get this straight, because I condemned those who call for attacks and potential murder on Muslims who are innocent, I displayed a Jihadi-apologist tendency? Re-read my posts, I agree that Jihadists should be destroyed.
I am happy to tackle the second subject.
Cheers
Thomas
Alert
You claimed that I was "[i]ntimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership".
If anyone is intimidated, it was me and any other Muslim who happens to visit this site. A person (or persons) advocating the destruction of our sites and harming Muslims who are innocent, is not displaying the Jihadi Resistance Spirit either.
I make no apologies for my course of action. In my view, you harm this site and the work it carries out when you write what you wrote and supported.
Cheers
Thomas
Alert
You claimed that I was "[i]ntimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership".
If anyone is intimidated, it was me and any other Muslim who happens to visit this site. A person (or persons) advocating the destruction of our sites and harming Muslims who are innocent, is not displaying the Jihadi Resistance Spirit either.
I make no apologies for my course of action. In my view, you harm this site and the work it carries out when you write what you wrote and supported.
Cheers
Thomas
Alert
You claimed that I was "[i]ntimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership".
If anyone is intimidated, it was me and any other Muslim who happens to visit this site. A person (or persons) advocating the destruction of our sites and harming Muslims who are innocent, is not displaying the Jihadi Resistance Spirit either.
I make no apologies for my course of action. In my view, you harm this site and the work it carries out when you write what you wrote and supported.
Cheers
Thomas
I apolgise for posting twice.
Voltaire
Maybe you need to read again, carefull this time what I wrote. I never stated that the damage was significant or that in some way this was worse than what Jihadists subject the world (non-Muslims and Muslims) to. That would be one of teh greatest lies in history. What I was condemning was the advocating of indiscriminate violence against Muslims and our places of worship.
One more post, it's late on the US East Coast.
Haidon, Because of where I came from, I am immediately looked on as some hick from the sticks. I think, I hope, that I know how you feel. You have a tremendous task ahead of you. The truly moderate Muslims, as you say you are, seem to be in danger from your fellow Muslims who do not see religion as you try to practice it. That Molotov cocktail that I spoke of could also come from the Muslims who believe in a different Islam. Why,apparently, do Sunnis and Shi'as hate one another?
My religion taught me that a church is just a building, nothing more. The church is made up of people. The early ministers in the 1800s in the US held services where ever they could, sometimes in a barn when it was raining, outside when it was not. The barn was still a barn with cows and horses sharing the space with worshippers. When I was a child, the church I attended held its first services in a movie theater until the church building was completed. I do not see a Mosque the same way you do. When my church is empty of people, it is just four walls and a roof.
islams worst nightmare would be winning, no one to hate, blame, or threaten. They would turn on thier own children and eat them.
Haidon; When a group stages an armed robbery resulting in a murder, all members of the group can be charged with 1st degree murder, and can be put to death. The ‘Collective Punishment’ theory is also used in business. If an employee of a company is negligent, the corporation can be sued and shareholders punished. In theory, and in practice, this places pressure on managers to maintain a disciplined environment. Ask the residents of Tokyo, or Dresden, or Carthage, about collective punishment’s lowest common denominator.
Collective punishment of Muslims for the acts that their communities commit has been negligible. As evidence, consider the absolute outrage in the wake of a guy rolling a pig’s head into a Mosque in Maine. I think that the restrain shown to date by the West reflects great credit on its morality.
Thank you for working within Muslim communities to bring about reform. I truly wish you success. As the moral person that you seem to be, I also encourage you to tell them to hurry up. The patience of some very powerful forces is running thin.
I am sorry Pelayo, but when you make outrageous statements expect outrageous, and sometimes unintelligible response. I belong to a progressive mosque in Wellington, New Zealand.
Cheers
Thomas
Posted by: Haidon at August 11, 2006 11:01 PM
... and I come from Seattle, yes, the same Seattle where your 'muslim brother' slaughtered Jewish women'. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003160605_shooting29m1.html
So, which of the 'Two-faced' approach should be applied to murderous muslim?
I don't buy into the moderate muslim lie, 2 types: practicing devout muslims and backsliders. I read thier book, nothing moderate in it.
Alert
This man should be executed. I don't think that the approach I articulated is "two faced" at all. Muslim communities need to be monitored closely, to catch bastards like this earlier. I have spoken to masome Muslims who agree that communities need greater scrutiny from law enforcement.
Incidentally my entire family is non-Muslims, including my wife (who will never convert to Islam, and I would NEVER want her to incidentally). Her arm was almost broken by a jihadist two months ago on the street by a jihadist who was angered with a sermon I gave and because of the fact she was non-Muslim.
Ok, now I really don't buy it. You gave a sermon but you have a non muslim wife who you do not want to convert and you let her go out alone. No male escort and she runs into a crazed jihadi. You couldn't sell that story to the BBC.
Alert
You claimed that I was "[i]ntimidating Pelayo and others through JW leadership".
If anyone is intimidated, it was me and any other Muslim who happens to visit this site. A person (or persons) advocating the destruction of our sites and harming Muslims who are innocent, is not displaying the Jihadi Resistance Spirit either.
I make no apologies for my course of action. In my view, you harm this site and the work it carries out when you write what you wrote and supported.
Cheers
Thomas
Posted by: Haidon at August 11, 2006 11:24 PM
Thomas,
You wouldn't feel intimidated if your 'muslim brothers' were not butchering Infidels all over thw world.
Since this isn't 'your' site, you don't have to worry about who harms this site. Besides, you have some apostates to save so, good luck!
"Cheers"
"There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists."
Thanks for that principled statement Robert.
I find the news articles and editorials on this site enlightening, but I am put off by some posters, who seem to come here to enjoy a five-minute hate. We will not win against the global jihad by childish name-calling or revenge fantasies.
In fact we are exactly the same human material as the mujahidin; a head, a body, brains, heart and guts. We are capable of all the same sins, crimes and stupidities. It is our culture that makes us different, and puts us in conflict with theirs. Self-control, lawfulness, equal duties and rights, tolerance of all who will be tolerant, are pillars of our culture; very different from the mob rule and lynch law that is typical of Dar al-Islam.
I find the news articles and editorials on this site enlightening, but I am put off by some posters, who seem to come here to enjoy a five-minute hate.
But 1400 years of hate is ok? The muslims earned the hate, we will not walk into a gas chamber under our own power. I protected muslims in the gulf and bosnia, how stupid was that?
Alert
Sorry to bust your bubble, but I have always supported the work of this site and Robert. So yes it is 'mine' so to speak. You have absolutely no clue on how to fight this war do you? Moderate Muslims have a role to play in this. Its bad enough we put up with jihadists who want us dead. But then we have to deal with fuckwits like yourself, who also want us dead.
Cheers
Thomas
So now you are a victim? Everyone wants you dead? I didn't get that from his post, I got he wants your kind watched closely. Dead? Nah, we just don't buy into the poor muslim crap.
Self-control, lawfulness, equal duties and rights, tolerance of all who will be tolerant, are pillars of our culture; very different from the mob rule and lynch law that is typical of Dar al-Islam.
Yes I agree in principle, but... Lets be honest. Which side has scored stunning strategic gains in the last three decades? Has mob rule and lynch law placed the self-controlled and lawful in a position where they need to dig in their heels and take violent action to defend their ideals?
I hate the thought of having to fight this fight. I've got better things to do with my time and money. But, unless Haidon is a miracle worker, we've got two choices.
Let's give Haidon some credit, a moderate, wow. Now we need to challenge the other 1.2 billion to join him. The same ones who would chop off his head. I give mighty mouse more of a fighting chance.
Since you didn't cite me, I am assuming that you endorse what I suggested above:
I thank you for your apparent endorsement. As one of our most illustrious contributors put it All the posters whom you condemn are advocating making the lands of the Infidels far less unpleasant, expensive and physically dangerous for all Infidels - indigenous and migrant. Therefore, none of them deserve to be condemned.Beagle
I happen to agree with you. From the tone of your post, I get the idea that you think that I was against this assault on a mosque. Not at all. And unlike Haidon, I don't care to distinguish between whether or not it is used for Jihad - unless it's a mosque in Singapore, it's not likely to have benign teachings preached from its ramparts.
Folks, we must separate the dancer from the dance, the victims from the violence, because the goal of certain types of violence is not to make victims, but rather to make the victim's community or nation live in fear. It is critical that the west find a way to deal with Jihadist violence. What is the best way? I am sure very few of us feel appeasement will work. It is for fools, and history does not suffer them gladly, or long. The law-enforcement model has gotten us this far; without it, in the US and Europe there would have been tens of thousands dead from Jihad attacks, maybe hundreds of thousands. We really can't know because we don't hear about it. This recent plot in the UK could have killed 5000 alone, and we all know many, many more attacks have been foiled or deterred.
The question is: how to avoid a still worse attack? This is a very germane issue to me personally. I live and work in Lower Manhattan. A nuclear bomb set off at Times Square (and don't think it can't happen) would almost certainly kill me, and ruin my home forever. I want this deterred. Jihadists must know without a doubt that the retaliation for mass casualty attacks will not be moralistic crusades to spead democracy, which will be used to bring Jihadists to power, not to mention further irritate the situation by making Muslims still angrier. This cannot succeed. Is has not succeeded.
What is needed is for young Muslims, even alienated young Muslims, to be deterred. Fear of personal destruction is not enough? What then?
I agree with the enlightened approach, the constant criticism of Islam's canonical texts, making fun of Islam and Jihadis, but we must combine the intellectual with the visceral if we want the full effect. In the end, lives will actually be saved, at least in the aggregate.
There must be an element of fear, real fear, a fear that is not the means but the goal. From it will spring proper respect, for life and for infidels. Right now Muslims seem so comfortable shouting into the camera, the hysteria bubbles to the surface much more readily than the fear. They feel dishonored, humiliated, angry, all things that are totally worthless, but to ameliorate them in the manner Muslims would wish them to be is surrendur. No one, least of all we who see the Islamic source of the Jihad, can be for backing down.
The only solution is to instill fear in the communities from which the Jihad springs. Then young men will not want to talk to the camera. Nations will hesitate to educate radical Imams. This requires a quantum leap in policy to achieve, and in that sense it is irrealistic, but here and there we see steps in the right direction.
For instance...there is no one, NO ONE, living in Lebanon now that in a few months' time when they are digging out from the devastation, will want more Hezbollah cross-border attacks. And if there turn out to be, the damage to be inflicted, regrettably, must be worse next time. The Israeli offensive was flawed in many ways but we have reason to hope that the message has been delivered and the situation, while still imperfect, may in the end be better than before the war, and Israel a little safer.
I do not know how to transfer this fear to the Muslim fifth column in the west. It is very hard to maintain it considering our legal traditions and inhibitions against civil confrontation. It is much easier on the battlefield.
Please don't mistake me for one who wants to see violence. I want there to be as little violence as necessary to protect my cities, nations, allies and culture from attack, but no less. I also understand that many, many Muslims see the exact same thing, but they are the wellspring from which the Jihad springs. They still need to be deterred.
Actually I was chaining off "innocent," which is exactly not how I'd want to describe anyone I was targeting. But innocent is a strange term in a war on discos, airplanes, without uniforms, involving human shields, and often recruited in mosques. I think I'm ready for the next... whatever. Something that works would be nice. I rule out accepting the terms of the MCB, Ahwannajihad, CAIR, George Galloway, or Charlie Rangel.
Folks, we need to stand up to the television stations and newspapers who jump up and produce those "Muslims Fear Backlash" stories.
Sure, it's PC. But one big reason they run such idiocy is that it is cheap and easy. Call them or write to them and tell them how annoying it is, how one-sided it is, how stupid it is. Tell them you will boycott them. Hell, the muslims do this. We may as well do it, too.
Let the media know you don't like it. Get out in front.
Don't let the muslims win this war by default.
Community leaders denounce pig's head incident
July 12, 2006
LEWISTON, Maine --Community leaders shaken by an incident in which a man tossed a pig's head into a mosque rallied Wednesday around the Somali worshippers, saying they won't tolerate religious hatred or discrimination.
Gathering in a park where John F. Kennedy once spoke, the leader of the mosque was joined by a rabbi and Christian ministers, along with the mayor, the governor, students and community activists in a show of solidarity.
"Our message is simple: An attack on any house of worship is an attack on all houses of worship," Rabbi Hillel Katzir said.
Brent Matthews, 33, of Lewiston, was charged with desecration of a place of worship, a misdemeanor, following the incident, which occurred at about 10 p.m. on July 3. Matthews, who remains free on bail, told police he intended it as a "joke."
The Rev. Jodi Hayashida from First Universalist Church in Auburn said the incident was no harmless prank. Instead, she said it represented a type of "casual hatred" that demanded a response from the Lewiston-Auburn community.
"A line has been crossed, a line that is very dangerous and a line that this community cannot afford to cross," she said.
About 150 people rallied in Kennedy Park to show support for the mosque and the Somali immigrants who worship there.
Ibrahim Douggie Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the pig's head incident fits with what he sees as a pattern of vandalism against mosques, with recent incidents in Indiana, Arizona, and Maryland.
Also, the FBI is investigating the online posting of a video in which someone fired a military-style rifle at the Quran, the Muslim holy book. The bullet-riddled copy of the Quran was left outside a mosque in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Overall, though, FBI statistics show that hate crimes against individual Muslims have declined since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In 2001, there was a high of 366 cases, and the figure has steadily declined to 32 in 2005, said FBI spokesman Bill Carter.
Thomas, things are a lot more peaceful here in NZ, and partly thanks to people like you. I certainly don't want to see your place of worship, if it is anti-jihadist, attacked.
It seems that some people here and perhaps the people who staged the attack don't see that particular mosque as a place of worship but a place of terrorist plotting/support. One solution might be for mosques to be very open in their activities and publish sermons in English for everyone to understand their true aims? I don't know. It's for muslims to come up with the solution, isn't it? Sounds like Thomas could help out there.
Regarding some of the other statements in this thread, just keep in mind that the FBI etc really are watching these sites (recently noted on Little Green Footballs). If you're considered to be advocating violence, who knows what will happen - Robert or Hugh or Marison might be able to tell us. Threatening to vote for the BNP should get a more useful reaction from the government!
BTW, I'm surprised that few posters have used the common islamist technique: "well, of course we don't approve of violence, we're really offended that you even ask (you're a racist poo-bottom!) but we won't be able to stop our disaffected and angry young men if you continue to ..." (insert whatever is on the agenda).
And anyway, it's all a zionist plot!!
Haidon wrote:
"I concur. "Mosques should not be considered any differently than bunkers or ammo dumps when they're used for jihad", with an emphasis on the last four words."
When are they not used for jihad? The mere cultivation of Islam is part of jihad. If a Muslim is not cultivating jihad on some level -- in terms of the different duties of that vast Army called the Umma --, he or she is not following the Koran.
I first heard that ALL Isrealis are legitimate targets because they must do national services and are therefore all military personel and not civilians, from moslems with Phds (ie intelligent) and who are genmuinely peacefull. When I see such rot has permeated the peaceful fringes of the Umma and the reports that two of the detainees are recent converts to Islam, I can only conclude that Mosques are military installations and all who attend them are combatants and not civilians. I think, however, that we should leave them to destroy each other's mosques like in pakistan and iraq but remove charitable status from them so the tax payer doesn't support two military institutions.
Folks,
Do not be suprised that the moques will become open targets. As I have been saying, there is a growing angry backlash by the non-Muslims against the Muslim community because the latter has done little to nothing about controling the radicals. The reasonable Muslims have to accept their responsibilites to take the actions that are needed. Otherwise this will be happening much more in the future.
Shath Shathyam Samacheret.
Also, the FBI is investigating the online posting of a video in which someone fired a military-style rifle at the Quran, the Muslim holy book. The bullet-riddled copy of the Quran was left outside a mosque in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Posted by: dennisw
Here is a tip for our FBI "there are real crimes to solve"
Dennisw, Ronin, the Quran with the bullet holes happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The FBI began its investigation after a complaint from CAIR. CAIR says, "Jump," and the dhimmi FBI jumps.
Destroying an English "interpretaion" of the Quoran with a rifle and leaving it on the front lawn of a Mosque is a potential hate crime, but killing a defenseless woman and seriously wounding five others is not. This is why we infidels are so frustrated and some of us vent our frustrations in words instead of other ways.
Sometimes our words are extreme, but sometimes they are just words.
I have an idea: When a poster presses the "POST" button, if there was second pop-up button that says "DO YOU REALLY WANT TO POST THIS" some of us might re-think what we have written. But it also makes for a very interesting discussion.
here is the actual video:
http://www.cair.com/video/kill_the_koran/
ps/ note its the CAIR website publicising this story...
arjun.sevak
Very few pople in this forum would actually understand Sanskrit. Please post your thoughts in Enlish.
swamykool
It is difficult for me to understand why the intelligent and articulate Haidon reads a web site where he disagrees with almost everything written by it's most prolific author, Hugh Fitzgerald. But then, it's difficult for me to understand why an intelligent and articulate person would belong to a cult founded by a man who embodied virtually every trait that I detest in a man.
What we are all searching for is something that works.... something that will contain the jihad and allow us to live our lives in freedom, and allow Haidon to belong to any group he wishes. So I'm interested in learning about and weighing, both morally and practically, all the ideas discussed here.
And if any non-muslim FBI agents monitor this site, please read and learn.
"There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one."
"I agree. Our most powerful weapon in self-defense against the continuing Islamic fascist assault on civilization is the truth. We need to work ceaselessly, as Robert so patiently does (and as his JW/DW crew do), to expose Mohammedan ideology for what it is. Any violence against mosques will undo his good works, and ours."
posted by Stendec..
Stendec;
You are taking the "attack" at face value, as the attack happened at midnight with muslims in the place, not a empty building. This looks as it could be a staged attack, to gather the support against attacking muslims.
Also, if we are going to get the truth (the whole truth), please ring me when it happens as I have seen very little of it in regards to islam from the media, governments, U.N., etc, etc.
Remember, islam fires at the population first, and then the army. The "west" fights a war to take out infastructure, roads, and just the enemy that can be killed without civilian deaths. I.E.; trying to fight a war without killing. Think about it.
"There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists."
This is a moral based position, very much like the "proportional responce" argument. Both are good, both are bad.
Focus, We Fight To Win.
What diffrence between a army of Germany in WW-2 destroying countrys and citys, later followed by the "west" attacking and destroying Berlin and Germany? Only one, the idea behind it. Nazi vs Democratic freedom.
I long for the day of unconditional surrender on the deck of our battleships, in their port.
I look for the unconditional surrender of islam, with them saying we have lost. We will stay in our lands, to live the way we wish to, and will no longer attack and project our ways and faith to you. We wish to live in peace, and see that all in the west, including Israel, have the god given RIGHT to live the way they wish, and we will accept this from this point on. We will Jihad against you no more.
Everything that gets to that point is fair game, in love and war.
And the day is near, one way or another.
another mosque has been attacked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4786083.stm?ls
Police are treating a fire at a mosque in Hampshire as racially motivated and have promised to act swiftly.
Emergency services were called to a blaze at a mosque in Sarum Hill, in Basingstoke, at 0330 BST on Saturday.
The reign of terror that was unleashed on British Muslims by Brits seeking revenge for the 7/7 attacks is detailed at:
http://www.eurolegal.org/isterbrit/islamophobiauk.htm
As far as I can make out the score was : Muslim quiet, well behaved boys killed 50 (including a few Muslims) while one Muslim was murdered in the resultant backlash,
(health warning: the eurolegal site describes any aversion to Islam as Islamophobia, which they equate with racism, pure and simple: the page trails off into a history of the inherent racism of the UK population)
Besides the attempted arson attack, the only 'faith-hate' crimes I've heard of here so far is that some women in hijabs have been pelted with eggs by children/teenagers. An idea of what watching the British media has been like, for people who are anxious that Israel should defeat Hezbollah is given in an article by Julie Burchill in Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749291.html
Private Eye once ran a cartoon in which somebody is being shown around a mental hospital and the doctor is saying:"We reserve this ward for men who shout at radios." The UK media coverage of the war in Lebanon and now the terrorist plot have almost succeeded in qualifying me for admission.
Haidon,
If you are for real and what you say I'll take at face value, then you are a perculiar creature worth examining in some detail. But to keep it short, you're reasonably well educated you have little or no cultural ties to the faith and you're well aware of the misgivings associated with accepted Islam, so then why my friend are you a Muslim?
Islofob,
"You are taking the "attack" at face value, as the attack happened at midnight with muslims in the place, not a empty building. This looks as it could be a staged attack, to gather the support against attacking muslims.
That's correct. I was speaking generally, that we should not do violence on mosques or Muslims, or encourage others to do so. In this instance, I do think there is a strong possibility that the attack was staged. But maybe not. If not, that violence is definitely a bad thing, because it weakens our cause by giving ammunition to the enemy.
If someone new to JW/DW were to initiate himself by reading this particular thread, he would almost certainly be shocked by some of the suggestions made about taking random violence on Muslim targets. That person, who otherwise might be an ally to our noble cause of self defense of western civilization, would likely be turned away, figuring he had stumbled onto some kind of extremist web site. Worse, various Muslim trolls (and others) might use these hostile remarks to discredit Robert.
I understand the rage and frustration that is being vented here. I have felt the rage myself many times while viewing the daily Muslim atrocities across the globe. But that rage has to be directed to where it will do some good.
The first obvious place is toward the sitting government. If your government is not defending the nation, then throw the rascals out (vote them out, that is--I am not suggesting some kind of violent revolution, of course).
The second obvious place is toward the media. After every dismal failure at accurate and unbiased reportage, strong protests should be lodged with various publications and radio and video networks. Boycotts can be started against the respective advertisers.
Finally (but certainly not comprehensively), if someone feels the urge to burn down a mosque, then he should do it symbolically. Perhaps, during a demonstration somewhere, burn a cardboard replica of a mosque, or some stuffed caricatures of Mohammed, or a photo of some balaclava'ed jihadists, or some Pakistani flags, or whatever.
In this regard, I am not sure what you can get away with in the UK without violating the law. Staying within the law is something that always has to be considered. But certainly, there is some wiggle room there. Somehow, the jihadists manage similar things whenever they feel the need(too often, it seems).
"Also, if we are going to get the truth (the whole truth), please ring me when it happens as I have seen very little of it in regards to islam from the media, governments, U.N., etc, etc."
That veracity problem we have in spades in the USA as well, and it seems to be everywhere across the globe. Of course, this is what JW/DW is precisely designed to combat. We have to get the word out--not slanted propaganda, but just the unvarnished truth about Islamic dogma. No sane person would ever join, or adhere to, such a perverted cult if he knew the full story.
We have all been taught to respect other cultures and beliefs. Islam, we know from studying it, respects no other cultures and beliefs. In fact, it requires its followers to strive ceaselessly, "by every strategem of war," to destroy all other cultures and belief systems.
Such a parasitic ideology deserves no respect whatsoever, as any guide to behavior in the civilized world. We will know we have won the battle for truth when our media pundits, and our government officials, and the everyday man on the street, when asked to seriously delve into Islam as a cultural model, reply merely with "you've got to be kidding!"
western infidel,
Whenever Haidon pops up here at Jihad Watch to offer his two cents, many posters ask him the same question you asked, and he invariably responds with a prickly, beleaguered attitude by saying that he has already explained it before, but he rarely gives a citation for us to read his prior explanation that is supposed to eternally and completely assuage our curiosity and concerns.
Even such a citation, however, would be insufficient.
I think Haidon should formally write an Apologia of Why I Am a Muslim and Robert Spencer should allow him to publish it here at Dhimmi Watch, and then Haidon should spend a little time responding to all (or most) of the comments & questions that will inevitably unfold from his Apologia.
Frankly, Haidon -- as a member and therefore implicit supporter of the Umma that is currently nourishing terrorism and inhumane abuses of human rights around the world -- owes us that much.
Regardless of the fact that he spends much of his time otherwise advocating for Islamic moderation against Muslims who wish him harm -- which is a good (though rather quixotic) thing for him to do -- in the context here of a discussion Forum about the problem of Islam, Haidon owes us that much.
For Haidon to repeatedly slough off our curiosity, concern and complaints about him being a member of Islam with "I pay my dues, you lot are a bunch of fat lazy cowards hiding behind your computers, so sod off!" is, frankly, insulting and only hardens our suspicions and dislike of him. If Haidon wants to make amends and exercise a chance to educate us, he again should pen a formal Apologia, ask Robert to publish it at Dhimmi Watch, and interact discursively with the comments for a couple of days. Then he can forever afterward refer any future people back to that essay and its ensuing discussion for the Definitive Explanation of Why Haidon is a Muslim.
And even if Haidon and his halal mates are addressing mind boggling overhaul and re-interpretation of the Koran, it will be so good that everyone on the planet will have to choose islam, there will simply be no other choice.
In the highly tense atmosphere that exists these days, Pelayo and Alert posted material that was highly offensive to Haidon. Yet Haidon has nothing to say on what is in the Koran. The stuff in the Koran is several times more offensive to Jews, Christians and Infidels at large. Worse still, it is put in practice.
Television posted:
Yes I remember Haidon has been asked that question several times, and he has never given a compelling reason why he became a Muslim. Perhaps he married a girl who was a Muslim.
And we can set it along Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim.
Stendec:
You suggest it would be a good idea to simply publish the Friday sermons and let the public draw their own conclusions. Excellent idea, and I agree with you.
Unfortunately, reality intervenes at this point. Do you seriously imagine that there is ANY British newspaper or magazine that would be willing to do such a thing?
Even 'Private Eye', which supposedly prides itself on being fearless of who it offends, was strangely silent over the cartoon controversy, and certainly wouldn't dare to print anything that might upset the Moonbats. (In truth, of course, the 'Eye' is just another left-wing pile of tosh, and the editor Ian Hislop is just another Dhimmi)
So, the MSM are pro-Islam. The Government and the main Opposition parties are pro-Islam. The Civil Service is pro-Islam. The judiciary are pro-Islam. The police chiefs are pro-Islam. Numerous noisy leftist pressure groups are pro-Islam.
What is there left for the public to do, except take matters in to their own hands in the only ways available to them?
enemyofislam,
If the situation is that dire in the UK, then perhaps some kind of mass civil disobedience would get people's attention--a national strike, perhaps?
Or perhaps protests could be signified by the "blue scarf" thing writ large; armbands, perhaps? Or some special unusual color on an article of clothing (say, on umbrellas), like the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine.
Those are just some passing thoughts--probably unworkable ideas. I don't have any definitive answers. We all need to get creative somehow. Either that, or we'll just have to wait for the next Islamic mass atrocity to motivate the government in a sane direction--another 9/11, or a 7/7, or an 8/22.
I certainly hope that the UK will pull out of their tailspin before it's too late.
Television
The suggestion you make is fair and a good idea. I'll liase with Robert in the next few days.
Cheers
Thomas
stendec, enemy of islam
Even if the the airline plot had succeeded, it wouldnt have changed policy in the UK. The pro-islam policy is too far down the road to turn around. Only a major attack on the USA, and the subsequent call to arms by the US, and the kicking in of treaties, may make a change.
Pelayo
If you see this, I wonder why Haidon was not offended by the despicable and vile stuff in the Koran but became highly incensed by your post.
DP111, I checked this article to see if it was still receiving comments and saw yours. What I did say was rather extreme; it was a reaction to this sentence: "There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists." I reject that notion as it is a formula for failure. I wrote with my guts instaed of my brain. Nevertheless, you made a good point. The Quran has far more extreme outright vileness than any of my previous posts. I don't recall calling anyone who responded to my posts an ape or a pig.
Haidon's response was most likely due to him and his people being beseiged from both sides. Infidels who say extreme things and Muslim fundamentalist who really would want to do extreme things.
Pelayo
Thanks for the reply. This is a war in which the Jihadists do the most despicable crimes, suicide bombings, the beheadings, while chanting the "Allahu Akcbar", and taking comfort that it is sanctioned in the Koran. It has been shown on this site, to those who protest that "this is not Islam", that these sorts of the most inhumane behaviour is in keeping with the central tenets of Islam.
It is downright amazing the degree of tolerance that has been shown to Muslims in the West. There have been no riots, beheadings of Muslims and general persecution of Muslims in the UK or the West. All of them still get their weekly Benefits.
There is a limit to though to what Infidel humans will tolerate. The continuous tolerance of suicide bombings by fellow citizens of fellow citizens, and all justified by the texts of Islam, becomes a suicide pact, as well as an encouragement to more Jihad. People will react in irrational ways, and jutifiably so, if the authorities do not take appropriate measures, not just to punish the Jihadi but to remove the threat. This is what we did in WWII - not just shoot down Luftwaffe pilots but to remove the threat.
Haidon very forcefully stated that the killer of the Jewish lady in Seattle should be executed. Well just terrific. But Muslims believe that any who kills a Jew or Christian, is headed for paradise - not much in the way of punishment then.
I'm reminded of all this of a statement by Bakri. He said that "we will defeat you (the West), as you are required to play by your rules(democracy, rule of law etc), and we go according to the rules of Allah (or something like that).
Haidon posted: "Incidentally my entire family is non-Muslims, including my wife (who will never convert to Islam, and I would NEVER want her to incidentally).
I didnt see that in this very long thread. Apologies to Haidon on that one.
I vent by buying products made in Israel. This month I bought food and wine produced in Israel mainly because of the unbelievable crap the UN and MSM gives Israel. I find this a more practical way to fight jihad. It's not much, but every little bit helps the anti-jihadist cause.
"If the situation is that dire in the UK, then perhaps some kind of mass civil disobedience would get people's attention..."
The situation is that dire everywhere in the West, not just in the UK. We need to see at the very least mass demonstrations and marches -- a "million man March" on Washington DC. This is the very least we should be seeing, if there really is a grassroots sentiment out there that all you Jihadwatchers so proudly claim there is.
Until I see something like this in several major Western capitals (Washington DC, London, Paris, etc.), I will continue to rationally conclude that the vast majority of the Western non-elite commoners are either passively naive or positively PC (or a mixture of both).
There are 300 million people in the US. If the "majority" are supposedly fed up with Muslims, why can't we see a measly one million organize a march five damn years after 911 and after all the Muslim crap we've seen around the world since then?
Haidion, I'm glad you are game for my suggestion. I think it will be helpful all around.
remote control, aka "Television"
The incoherence of someone who claims to be a Muslim, yet denies he accepts essential parts -- perhaps the essential part -- of Islam, and apparently does not share the Islam-inculcated view of the duty and necessity of Jihad (conducted through all of its varied instruments), denies that he accepts the uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, makes one wonder why he thinks he is entitled to call himself a Muslim. He can do it, it makes for a certain piquancy, gives him a certain importance, at least in his own eyes -- but what does his own private brand of Islam have to do with the Islam of a billion others, or with the actual contents, and straightforward meaning derived from, the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira?
And when he further tells us that his wife is not a Muslim and he would not have her be one, nor his children, what does that tell us?
This kind of thing is merely a curio, a party trick.
As far as I am concerned, he is not a Muslim but someone who cannot quite break away, or finds his own attempt to make something of his own plight -- no doubt he is fearful of declaring his apostasy so will do everything to indicate it, but still wishes, for safety's sake, and for the sake of some psychic need, to continue to call himself a Muslim.
Fine. But no one should take what he says as representative of anyone or anything. It is solipsistic and sui generis. To a fault.
Remote control
There would be very few in this country (UK) willing to organise a million man march or anything similar. Under the new faith laws the organisers will face prison terms of up to 7 years for hate crimes. The leader of the BNP has organised meetings for years where he has spoken the truth about the religeon of "peace". As soon as these new laws were passed he was put on trial. No-body could prove a word he said was untrue. The outcome? The lefties want a re-trial.
Lets put this into perspective. A (muslim) asylum seeker recently got 3 months in prison for driving illegally, knocking down and killing a 2 year old girl and leaving the scene. 7 years in prison is approximately 28 times longer than 3 months, so presumably under British law speaking the truth that Islam is evil is regarded as 28 times worse as murdering a toddler?? Meanwhile "our" imams continue to preach hate of the west, under full police protection...
My $0.02
Uriel Septim,
With the higher (or lower, depending on your POV) standards of England, a million-man march could still be organized -- just tighten up the rhetoric. There must be some way to word the guiding theme (and the slogans of all placards, etc.) in such a way that it skirts the legal definition of a hate crime.
Or, more boldly, where are the one million English citizens who are courageously, sufficiently fed up with the situation to organize and go out to the streets, one-million strong, precisely in order to get arrested -- as in the days of protests of the 60s? The spectacle of a million being arrested, with hopefully their rhetoric in view of the news media, by itself would be educational. And at the very least, cathartic.
Hugh, even if Haidon's proposed Apologia rests on a solipsistic and sui generis phenomenon, it could still be educational, by laying bare the flimsy ground on which it stands. With a Haidon Apologia + his brief interaction & participation in ensuing comments for a day or two, Jihad Watch would then have a definitive and patently instructive record of just how solipsistic and sui generis a representative attempt at carving out a moderate Islam, in fact, is.
Furthermore, I don't think Haidon's attitude is all that sui generis: I think there are potentially millions of otherwise intelligent Westerners who think, more or less like Haidon, that Islam has a moderate, harmless chewy nougat center of spiritual enlightenment.
Hugh
As always, you get personal. I will never dispute Hugh that you are a brilliant and articulate writer. But if I'm a one trick pony, you most definitely are at least a two trick pony guilty of preaching to the choir, and engaging in personal ad hominem attacks on any and all whom don't strike a chord with you. Your posting above, a case in point.
I am not a Pavlovian dog, like some of the posters here Hugh. I don't salivate and nod my head at everything you write. Hugh, read whatever you want into my statements. I never said my beliefs had a wide following in the Ummah. You certainly don't need to remind me of that; I am confronted everyday by it.
You have no interaction with Muslim communities. You can only objectively try and ascertain what is happening. As one who works in Muslim communities, attitudes are changing, and Muslims are beginning to recognise that Islam is fraught with problems that need to be fixed, not by destroying Islam or killing Muslims, but by somehow changing how we look at things. While far from perfect the inner workings of the New Zealand Muslim community are an example. For once Hugh, I would like to see you condemn statements like those of Alert, Pelayo and Infidel Pride (above) advocating the targeted killing of truly innocent Muslims or random attacks on masjids. But instead, being the moral man you truly are, you condemn me for deploring it.
Television
I will begin drafting this week, and send it off to Robert when I can. If he decides to publish (which he may not), I will devout as much time as I can responding.
But what I would appreciate from you is a bit of civility and willingness to discuss. I am usually the first one to admit that I am wrong or off the mark. But for once, I would like you and others to keep an open mind, and BE WILLING TO AT THE VERY LEAST LISTEN. I'm sure you won't have any problem with this. At the same time, I will do my best to not be defensive.
Cheers
Thomas
Television
I don't think you have paid attention to a single thing I have said. You wrote:
"Furthermore, I don't think Haidon's attitude is all that sui generis: I think there are potentially millions of otherwise intelligent Westerners who think, more or less like Haidon, that Islam has a moderate, harmless chewy nougat center of spiritual enlightenment".
I have always acknowledged that moderate Islam has NEVER existed. I agree with the general notion that there are moderate Muslims but Islam itself is not moderate. Read this very carefully
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16023
Cheers
Thomas
Thomas,
"I have always acknowledged that moderate Islam has NEVER existed."
My preceding post to which you objected did not claim you think a moderate Islam exists or has existed; only that you think there is a harmless chewy nougat of spiritual enlightment at the center of Islam.
Your front page essay basically rests upon the argument that there is this chewy nougat center, but that Muslims have repeatedly and successfully over the centuries perverted and corrupted it.
I hope your Apologia will articulate exactly what this harmless and nutritious and beneficial chewy nougat center in Islam is, with specific citations.
I advocated random attacks on 'innocent'* Muslims, not targeted attacks e.g. if vigilantes attack, say, a Mr Wasim Akhtar, they'd do it because he's a Muslim, not because he's Mr Wasim Akhtar. Nor did I advocate killings - mere assaults would do. The explanation is pretty simple: as long as it's merely law-enforcement taking on suspects, coupled with the pc climate where no one can publicly question the role of Islam in fostering this climate of terror, you aren't going to see 'dots connected', so to speak. But if innocent Muslims find themselves the target of infidel vigilantes, coupled with public (infidel) scorn and condemnation, they'd be forced to do any (or a combination) of the following:
- Leave that Infidel land in fear/disgust;
- Read their local imams the riot act (in a manner of speaking, or maybe not) for inciting hatred of infidels from the ramparts of the mosque;
- Act against the devout Muslims in their ranks. Currently, one of the excuses that they have is that while there is no price to pay for siding with the Jihadists, there would be a heavy price to pay for siding against the Jihadists. That dynamic has to change. In other words, the 'innocent' Muslim must be made to realize that there is a price to be paid one way or another, and it's his call on which side of the Jihad he chooses to fight on.
Given that pressure on the Imams aren't going to be brought to bear by the dhimmi authorities everywhere, it has to be induced by these vigilantes on non-combatant (there, that's a better term) Muslims so that they feel the compelling need to bear down on their Imams. Let the Imams tell some livid congregationists that their duty is Jihad, and see what happens. You know full well how Saudi imams tell their followers whatever the Sauds want them to say; no reason why the British, or American ummahs can't bring the same sort of pressure to bear on their Imams.On the other topic about our salivating at everything Hugh writes, I for one have disagreed with him a couple of times (albeit not on the central issue of this site - Jihad). While he is more than capable of defending himself, one thing that he was right in pointing out was that nothing that you say should be taken as representative of even a large number of Muslims worldwide, and that that is a factor that should be noted whenever one is reading your commentary. While you may well take it personally, it's not so much a personal ad hominem attack insofar as it puts in the larger context of worldwide Muslim ideology your statements, and the fact that it shouldn't be taken as representative.
For one thing, you talk about the NZ Muslim community. I'm sure there may be a few (in single digits) ummahs in the world (e.g. New Zealand, Singapore) where Muslims aren't threatening others. Everywhere else, the evidence is different: here in the US, Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, Berkeley and elsewhere are busy campaigning on behalf of Hizbullah (regardless of whether or not they are Shia); in UK, polls of the ummah there keeps showing a majority of the ummah as actively hostile to the UK - both government and society; in India, the 7/11 bombings were every bit the handiwork of Indian Muslims as much as that of Bangladeshis, and in Israel, Israeli Muslims, despite living in Israel proper, with full citizenship rights, actively support the PA over Israel (even though they aren't legally allowed to travel in the 'West-Bank'.) These are the testimonies to 'innocence' that you cite above; Infidel vigilantes would do well to keep that in mind when taking on the likes of the ummah.
Also, re: TV's suggestion that you do an essay as to why you are a Muslim, I recall that there is a book by that name by Asma Gull Hasan. Maybe you should call your essay 'Why I became a Muslim'. I read your Frontpage essay (incidentally, why was that your only contribution there?), and your statement
was hilarious: would it be irresponsible to put the Bible in the hands of Christian youth? Adi Granth in the hands of Sikh youth? Torah and Talmud in the hands of Jewish youth? Mahabharata in the hands of Hindu youth? Somehow, this statement seems to suggest that Muslim youth are incredibly stupider than various types of Infidel youth.Also, if you were serious about the reformation of Islam, that's what you should be doing. Work on the ummah with the message - "clean up your act, or after a while, Infidels will clean it up for you, and you with it, instead." Instead, by trying to get Infidels to recognize the work you are doing, when it's currently the equivalent of trying to alter ocean levels by taking pails of water out of the ocean, you make your efforts, however laudable, the laughing stock of Jihadists and Infidels alike.
*Innocence: Just as within Islamic jurisprudence, someone who is an infidel cannot be innocent, almost by definition, similarly, the same standard can and should be used when determining the 'innocence' of Muslims. The only innocent Muslims that exists are those who have jettisoned the 'faith', and I'll throw you in, given your honesty. But beyond that, I'm perfectly happy to use the same standards of innocence as used in Islamic texts to determine the innocence of people - except that I'm turning it around.
At some point, violence must be met with violence, and cultures who forment violence must be destroyed.
Even Abe Lincoln said: "Be gentle with the gentle, tough with the tough."
Posted by: Alert at August 11, 2006 08:21 PM
Why are you sorry? If anything, West has been kind and tolerant, compared to the barbarism muslims have globally unleashed on non-muslims.
Posted by: Alert at August 11, 2006 08:38 PM
the Brits should simply deport all Paki muslims.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 11, 2006 07:36 PM
.. and save their hard-working, tax paying non-muslim citizens their lives.
Posted by: Alert at August 11, 2006 08:46 PM
If the government does not do its job then
the citizens have to take the law in their
hands.
Posted by: george_rem at August 11, 2006 03:04 PM
Not only that, the corrupt and defunct politicians and their parties need to be booted out, even tried for treasoan and jailed, else, those corrupt politicians, instead of standing up to Islamic terror, will turn their official force agsinat the hard-working, tax-paying citizens, as was the case with Dubya turning againat minutmen.
Posted by: Alert at August 11, 2006 08:55 PM
Thomas (Haidon),
Why should mine or other comments be condemned? What is wrong with responding to violence with violence? I know exactly what I mean and I know exactly what you are trying. Therefore, I have repeated my posts above, with some others, which I have responded to (for continuation). Nowhere in my posts, I have advocated initiating violence. I have advocated responding to violence with violence. Which means, if there is no violence to respond to, there will no response. Even you will agree to this. What you are trying is to pick a part of my posts, twist the meaning to make it appear that I am advocating un-instigated violence, and asking Hugh and JW leadership to condemn them. This is exactly the strategy used by muslims all over the world. For example, Hezhallah instigated violence by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, then tried to say that Israel has attacked without provocation, which was not the case. In other words, your indication that Pelayo, myself, Infidel Pride and others are advocating un-instigated violence is false and dishonest. JW leadership is fully aware of such dishonest tactics so, for once, I would elike to see you be honest, before asking JW leadrship to comdemn our posts, which you claim profess violence, where in reality, they only profess responding to violence with some fo the same, Completely different from what you are making it out to be.
Nice try!
There is no excuse for vigilantism or attacks like this one. If those opposed to the jihad resort to terrorism, there is increasingly little to distinguish them from the jihadists
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
In WW2 the United States and Britain gave Germany and Japan back everything they'd given others and then some. Did this mean we were no different from Germany and Japan? Absolutely not. WHAT you are fighting for sure as hell matters.
There are things we are absolutely never going to do, like suicide bombing or turning our children into bombs or deliberately putting them in harm's way for "photo opportunities" or taking our babies aboard airplanes we plan to blow up. But beyond that I have absolutely no moral problem whatsoever with making these shits feel some of the terror they so freely hand out to everyone else.
We are not going to win this war without getting ugly and nasty, Robert. It would be best if our governments would give us official sanction to get ugly and nasty, like Lincoln gave the Federal Army the green light, and Roosevelt and Churchill gave their forces license to conduct unrestricted total war against Germany and Japan (holding back only the chemical weapons, which you can bet they would have used had Japan or Germany used them first). Heck, during the Revolutionary War Americans used tactics that the British regarded as barbaric and against the rules of warfare.
But absent our governments letting us do what we need to do to defend ourselves and protect our loved ones, people are going to start doing it themselves. I'm afraid most of the Western masses are just ordinary Joe Sixpack (or Joe Pint) Gentiles who don't posses the preternatural patience of our Jewish friends.
In spite of everything we did during WW2, we were no closer to being like Japan and Germany at the end of the war than we were at the beginning. We still valued freedom and democracy, perhaps because we had just fought like hell to save them.
Yes, there are certain tactics in warfare (suicide bombing, using children/civilians as weapons and human shields) that are beyond the pale, but the REASONS you use other ruthless methods matter. The things you are fighting for matter.
Freedom and human rights were not won by people who were obsessively concerned with taking the "high road" at all costs.
americaningermany
Thanks. I couldn't believe Robert (or Hugh?) uttering this kind of moral equivalency.
Imagine if we had decided "taking the moral high road" against Germany and Japan meant we couldn't use ANY of their war tactics against them.
There are certain things we won't do unless we absolutely have to, and there are certain things we won't do even IF we have no other options. (Using suicide bombings, child shields, etc. against this enemy wouldn't work anyway.)
But the idea that tossing a Molotov at an empty mosque in the middle of the night somehow sets us on the path to being "just like them" is absurd.
I tentatively disagree with the sentiments of tigger2005, Infidel Pride, Alert, americaningermany, and others -- in this sense:
I think vigilantism in this overall context of the Problem of Islam can be good insofar as it is a demonstration of the existence of appropriate "rage and pride" amongst Infidels.
However, if there are Infidels willing to go so far as to engage in vigilante violence, why not first take the step before that, and organize mass protests, million-man-marches? Even mass protests where hundreds of thousands of Infidels get arrested for the "hate crime" of simply collectively declaring that Islam is the problem?
I'll tell you why not: because that massive grass-roots groundswell does not yet exist. The vast majority in the West are for the most part relatively naive, passive, and blinkered by the PC multiculturalist template by which Islam itself cannot be problematic.
Thus, in the absence of an actual majority of us Infidels, who can't even muster a mass protest in one city, let alone in multiple cities throughout the West, as they should -- in the absence of this, I suppose a smattering handful among the still, lamentably pathetically tiny minority of jihad watchers can go around lobbing a molotov cocktail or two here and there, or leave a pig's head on a mosque doorstop, etc.
But such straggling and threadbare vigilantism would have no effect but to solidify even more the prevalent PC multiculturalist template that dominates the Western consciousness.
I reiterate:
1) our violence has to be smart
2) the psyche & culture of Muslims is saturated with violence, and it won't appreciably affect their attitudes in the long run to try to terrorize them in tiny ways -- only in massive ways, and Western vigilantes aren't capable of the massive force the West displayed in WWII which did the job.
why not first take the step before that, and organize mass protests, million-man-marches? Even mass protests where hundreds of thousands of Infidels get arrested for the "hate crime" of simply collectively declaring that Islam is the problem?
Posted by: Television at August 14, 2006 12:40 PM
Reminds me of the civil disobedience/Quit India movement by Gandhiji.....
Anyway, I am up for this, who else is?
Alert:
You wrote:
"I have advocated responding to violence with violence. Which means, if there is no violence to respond to, there will no response...For example, Hezhallah instigated violence by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, then tried to say that Israel has attacked without provocation, which was not the case. In other words, your indication that Pelayo, myself, Infidel Pride and others are advocating un-instigated violence is false and dishonest. JW leadership is fully aware of such dishonest tactics so, for once, I would elike to see you be honest, before asking JW leadrship to comdemn our posts, which you claim profess violence, where in reality, they only profess responding to violence with some fo the same, Completely different from what you are making it out to be".
Be honest? I couldnt be. When Israel attacked Lebanon it had every right to. It was legitimate self-defence. What you have supported however is quite different. You have stated that because there has been terror attacks by Muslims, a legitiamte response is to attack Muslim places of worship, irrespective of whether any jihad inspiring activity is carried out. There is a clear difference Alert.
Do not turn this around on me. You have no moral grounding. I have never, as a Muslim advocated for teh subjugation/domination or destruction of non-Muslims. In fact, 99% of the time I stand in solidarity with non-Muslims against Muslims. So it bothers me to hear that people think my mosque should be attacked, when it is only a place of worship, for good decent people.
And to the piece of shit named americangermany who wrote "Absolutely! You are right. You can't talk to and reason with terrorists. I should say: Muslims. Same thing".
The fact that you equate all Muslims with terrorism is unspeakable. You are nothing but a coward hiding behind your alias, with no moral compass.
You want Muslims dead. Start with me:
Thomas Haidon
12 West Road
Northland
Wellington
New Zealand
I'll be waiting...
You have stated that because there has been terror attacks by Muslims, a legitiamte response is to attack Muslim places of worship, irrespective of whether any jihad inspiring activity is carried out.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!!
My posts and links are posted above for all to see. NOWHERE have I mentioned a mosque or muslim place of worship, So, it is another of the many concocted lies, which is not surprising, coming from the culture of Al-taquiya and Kitman! Also, since you mention muslim place of worship, time and again, mosques have been used fot terorr attacks. Finsbury Park mosque is shut down aand Al-Masri, the Egyption imam has been tried and convicted. Does not speak well for mosques, does it? And there are other examples too. So, as it turns out, although I did not mention mosque or muslim place of worhip, which you lied about my mentioning, mosques have been proven to be used for terror, making them legitimate target to combat terror. Mr, Haidon, not only are the mosques, you claim to be places of worship, used for terror, but your accusation of my calling for attack on mosque is nothing but a concocted lie. Fortunately, JW leadership amd members are well aware of muslim lies and half-truths, as they come directly out of religious scripts.
I can be accused of being a coward but not of lying, which cannot be said about yourself, or any devout muslim, for that matter.
Alert, I have attributed something to you that you have not said and I apologise. I was not reading carefully enough. I acknowledge that I have mixed you up with another (Pelayo). His comments have been removed. Please accept my apology.
Taqiyya? Bloody hell, You really do salivate every time Hugh speaks. It was a simple mistake. And the mistake is quite easy given that Robert has removed teh offending posts above.
Incidentally, the Finsbury Park mosque HAS NOTHING TO DO with my mosque. A man like Al Masir, would be castigated and brought straight to the police in this community, if he werent killed first. We are also sick and tired of these animals.
Now enough, back to my Apologica...
Again, I am sorry for the mixup, and for the personal comments.
Al-taquiya and Kitman? For fu*ks sake! I'm dying of laughter... You are a riot!
Insh'Allah they will all convert to the true faith eventually. I just need to keep trying to play the ultra moderate. Taqiyya is the weapon, and they eventually will crumble! But I think this person Alert is catching on!
Oh sh*t did I say that out loud? Damn it! I've been exposed. And i would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for that blasted Alert!
Well at least I'm out of the closet! Allahu Akbar!
Again, I am sorry for the mixup, and for the personal comments.
Posted by: Haidon at August 15, 2006 01:14 AM
Since you acknowledge a mistake, my accusation of lying does not apply any more. Consider it withdrawn. Also, apology accepted .... but in future, please be careful.
Thanks Alert. I have been sitting at my desk for about for days straight writing a paper with about 12 hours sleep, starting to get a bit delirous i reckon.
I will be careful.
Cheers
Thomas
Greetings americangermany (a coward hiding behind an alias). I think I'll call you Lil' champ from now on.
You wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to live in New Zealand, Australia, the United States or Europe, you traitorous snake. Why don't you take your vile self and live in Saudi Arabia amongst your beloved heathens?
You are a laugh mate. I guarantee that I have done more in a day to fight terrorism and jihad that you do in a day wanking at your computer. In fact, I have just spent four days straight writing a piece of advice to the government on TOUGHENING and STRENGTHENING its counter-terror laws. I'm wondering what someone like you does, besides being an embarassment to your family and community.
The scum in Saudi are not my bretheren and I spend my time fighting the poison they spread.
Cheers mate, have a great day.
Haidon: As you can see, many Americans will NEVER, EVER forgive Islam for the attacks of 9-11. I won't, that's for sure. Since you have already told me that the Kuran, Hadiths and Sura are replete with exhortations for Muslims to commit violence against non-Muslims in the name of al-lah, my question to you is why do you remain with Islam? Certainly you are going to receive a poor reception on this blog and few educated westerners likely to befriend you when they learn you are Muslim.
Virtually none of Islam's teaching can be verified empirically, and as it happens many of the Kuran's teachings are certifiably FALSE: Islam actually teaches that the world is flat and I have yet to see a talking tree or talking rock. So that is a strong mark against it, especially when, being on such shaky ground, it commands Muslims spill human blood on these same shaky grounds. If Christianity told me to kill, I would have long since left it! Thankfully, murder is a CRIME in Christianity and that is the only way I would have it.
One of the most tragic consequences of being a Muslim is that it places the follower inside a box that he or she can never really escape. You are bound by laws that cannot be changed or modified, the value of your life has been greatly diminished, and no one outside Islam can really trust you because of Islam commands to commit deception and violence against the non-Muslim (even if you prefer neither command). What a terrible way to live.
Please consider leaving Islam for your own sake. (And I don't care what religion you take up, if any, just as long as it isn't Islam)!
To my good friend americangermany. Now that you have my address I will be expecting a card. I'm really glad that we have been able to bond like this.
You wrote so eloquently:
Your poor wife. What a joke. Having to put up with muslim attacks on her own person, because of an idiot like you! Get a grip. You think you're smart, but in reality you are an idiot, not to mention a traitor.
I agree. She is an amazing woman to put up with me. I'm curious, how am I a traitor when I am helping fight jihad terrorism? I'm not sure how one would come up with that conclusion. Again I reiterate, I do more in day to fight jihad terrorism than you do. What is your definition of a traitor?
Yes, I am an idiot. A blithering idiot. In fact I'm drooloing all of myself as we speak.
Pythagoras, no need to remind me on 9/11. I lost people close to me. I'' try and answer some of your questions in an essay I am writing. Regarding one point however "FALSE: Islam actually teaches that the world is flat and I have yet to see a talking tree or talking rock." This is allegorical.
Cheers
The Muslim Scumbag (and traitor too!)