In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the age-old question, "Why do they hate us?" -- and examine in particular the theory that Britney Spears and I are responsible for global jihad activity.
In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the age-old question, "Why do they hate us?" -- and examine in particular the theory that Britney Spears and I are responsible for global jihad activity.
You could be the most deeply faithful traditional Christian, the jihadists are still going to be at war because we are not Muslim.
Oh, so they don’t like Ms. Spears, but they would have no problem taking in mikie Jackson as one of their own. How come that doesn’t surprise me? The answer…JihadWatch.
Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, is not all bad. He is absolutely right that Osama bin Laden’s perception that Bill Clinton was weak in the 1990s led to the stepping-up of global jihad efforts. But the central point of the book is that “the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11,” not only by fostering a view that America was weak, but by spreading around the world “a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world that are being overwhelmed with this culture. In addition, the left is waging an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures. This campaign has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe that their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault.” Therefore, “without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.”
+++++++++++++++
muslims are violently fighting the West and secularism.....created by the left.
Christians Jews and the peaceful religions need to wake up and realize that we are being attacked not only by the cult of islam but by the left that will as surely destory our beliefs as will the cult of islam.
If action is not taken by the West the peaceful religion we are doomed to utter defeat........... and will be enslaved or murdered.
reason does not work with the cult of islam.....only overt force......
UNLIKE VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT VIOLENCE IN THE QURAN IS COMMANDED FOR ISLAMIC BELIEVERS UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD IS UNDER ITS GRIP--that is a basic fact.
QURAN:
' Wage war against those who have been given The Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid Allah and his prophet have forbidden, nor do they follow the religion of truth - until they pay tax as an acknowlegement of their inferiority, and are humbled.'(Qur'an 9.29)
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Ishaq:324 "He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
---------
unlike a few obscure old testament passages Muslims are UNIVERSALLY fight until the whole world is under islam.
We could be a nation of Christian Amish conservatives --it would make NO difference.
Dinesh and other such very foolish weak minded people either do not know this or are purposely ignoring the elephant in the room.
Mr. Spencer,
Your suit fits like a glove. Who is your tailor?
That was the best JW video clip yet--clear, focused, and delivered with polish. Yet again, it reminded me of Rod Serling wrapping up an episode of the Twilight Zone, except that the reality of the renewed Islamic assault on civilization is far more disturbing than even the most ghoulish plotline of TZ.
If Britney Spears is the problem, why are they beheading an ice cream vendor in Thailand?
Re: How Britney Spears and I cause jihad
Our species must give a reason for every behavior we engage in, have some answer to every "Why?" question. We cannot accept behavior from ourselves/others without we/them giving a reason-explanation for any behavior.
We require beliefs to explain what we cannot answer ("Why?") re ultimate reality. "Religion" provides reasons for many unexplainable things and is a reflection of the human mind's need provide an answer to every "Why?" question re ultimate reality or behavior. We are different from every other species because of "Why?"
The reason for Jihad has to do with the desire for power over others, Islam provides the rationalization for that. It is about domination over others and uses God as the "reason" for the will to dominate. Islam is ultimately about the will to power, the will to exploitation of others, and makes such things "holy". It is self-serving disguised as disinterested principle.
Britney Spears etc. is a rationalization for deception, stunts, exploitation and the killing of unbelievers. Ultimately, the conflict with Islam is about the Muslim will to dominate and exploit others. It is about domination.
As objects of Muslim resentment, contempt, and hatred, the elegant Audrey Hepburn en tailleur, an unmarried girl sweetly flirting with Gregory Peck at the Bocca della Verita, would do just as well as the repellent Britney Spears, all midriff and mugging, giving her Kevin-Federline memento a quick spin in the car for one more carefully calculated outing of the let's-pretend-I'm-desperate-to-avoid-the-paparazzi variety, the kind sure to make it onto that evening's ET or Access Hollywood.
There is not one nation, not one empire, that has come into existence without the use of violence and often the extermination-subjugation of some recently "native" peoples. Not one. This is true from the Aztecs to the Zulus and is true for us too. (This reflects in a large picture individual human nature.)
The Arabs were/are typical in this pattern and Islam was/is used as the justification-"reason" for the violent subjugation/and (sometimes) extermination of "native"/"other" peoples. The Spaniards used "religion" as the justification for conquest in the Americas. "Native Americans" violently subjected other "Native Americans". Everyone and every group has good "reasons" for their behavior. "Islam" is a good cover for exploitation and the will to dominate.
That's what Islam is really about, what Jihad is really about. Everything else is rationalization for that.
Hugh-
Britany Spears is all strip and no tease. There's not much more than that with her. Audrey Hepburn types know how to get a guys attention and keep up his interest.
Britney Spears, Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Paris Hilton...
The new SAT test is going to produce many more swing-misses.
I have a theory:
yes indeed Brittney Spears is causing them to hate us why?
see all the young muslim women are taken by old men as wives, not one but many. since the women head count is not four times that of men, These young muslim men do not get enough Sex let alone a loving romantic relationship. when they see hotties like Britney (their women look like penguins in islamic clothing) they get sexually frustrated. This frustration changes into anger and hate. No wonder that Imam (in australia) made that open Meat comment they know their boys are horny and not getting enough sex who would pounce on any women showing any skin. That is the reason why they encourage jihad so that these boys go kill themselves in suicide bombings so that they can have a good supply of young broads coming into their filthy bed. Wonder why the Imams don't become martyrs by doing jihad and get pearly boys and 72 houries in heaven instead. they are bunch of liars just talking the talk but no walking the walk.
Birbhadra-
I like your "displaced hard-on" theory. It makes sense.
There is not one nation, not one empire, that has come into existence without the use of violence and often the extermination-subjugation of some recently "native" peoples. Not one. This is true from the Aztecs to the Zulus and is true for us too. (This reflects in a large picture individual human nature.)
Posted by: Frank at February 1, 2007 12:08 PM
Since Ishmael there is violence and more violence
"Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because The Lord has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis 16:11-12 RSV).
I think sexual suppression and frustration in
Islam is a bigger problem than anyone realises.
Old paedo Muhammad could not control his base
intincts and thought other men were as much a violent uncontrollable pervert as he was.
Hence the draconian laws and punishments.
I`ve searched in vain for any Freudian analysis of
Muhammad and Islam.
These guys get so horney they want to die for 72 virgins. One horney woman is a good reason for living. Forget about the 72 virgins. The poor saps are used by these cleric bums.
You know two names you would never link together:
Robert Spencer and Britney Spears....
That should be D'Souza legacy!
Bill Clinton was tougher on terrorism then any one want to give him credit for. In fact when he was trying to get more funding for terrorism in the 90's, it was the right-wing congress, FBI, CIA and Defense Department who didn't see the urgency, even though there had been 11 terror attack against America in the first years of the Clinton Administration. If fact some claimed Clinton "read too many Tom Clancy books". Bill Clinton declared 'war on terror' in April 1996, before the term became mainstream, which was largely ignored by both the government and the people.
"This will be a long hard struggle. There will be set backs along the way. But just as no enemy could drive us from the fight to meet our challenges and protect our values in World War II and the Cold War, we will not be driven from the tough fight against terrorism today. Terrorism is the enemy of our generation, and we must prevail....But I want to make it clear to the American People that while we can defeat terrorist, it will be along time before we defeat terrorism. American will remain a target because we are the most open society on earth. But to change any of the, to pull our troops back from the worlds trouble spots, turn our backs on those taking risks for peace, to weaken our opposition against terrorism, to curtail the freedom that is our birthright would be to give terrorism the victory it must not and will not have."
Bill Clinton - April 1996
"On the day of the meeting (Sept. 4, 2001 (one week before 9-11)), Clark sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized US counterterrorism efforts past and present. The 'real question' before the principals, he wrote 'are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? ....Is al Qida a big deal?...Decision makers should image themselves on a future day when CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attack and hundred of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US. What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That day could happen at anytime."
~From the 9-11 Commission Report~
That day happened a week later, 3000 plus Americans lay dead in America.
If Bill Clinton was so weak on terrorism and Bush so tough on terrorism, why did bin Laden wait until Bush was in office to attack us in the biggest terror attack against America? Terrorism was not even an issue with the Bush administration (they even started cutting the funding Clinton managed to funnel for terrorism) until 9-11, although we had plenty of intelligence available to stop 9-11, it was ignored by this administration. This is all fact and is in the 9-11 commission report. Bush was weaker then Clinton on terrorism, until 9-11 open his eyes.
""If Bill Clinton was so weak on terrorism and Bush so tough on terrorism, why did bin Laden wait until Bush was in office to attack us in the biggest terror attack against America?""
He didn't. The first attack on the WTC was in 1993.
Here's the wiki article to refresh your memory
It wouldn't have mattered who was President. Even though I think Clinton was negligent for not killing OBL when he had a chance, there's plenty of blame to go around.
Hmm, messed up the html, cut and paste this to your browser;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Brilliant insights from Dinesh, wow, the solution was there all along! Just shutdown MTV and movies and make our women wear sheets and rags covering their faces and bodies and there will be no more terrorism. Of course, it's all our fault after all.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe drools
over western pop stars...
.
From a Clinton speech to the 9-11 commission. Hollow rhetoric, if Clinton was not going to run away, what happened in Somalia? The 9-11 commission was nothing but a bunch of gubment stooges. Written by the same people that imported these violent hateful people into our country. The same people that tell us it is a religion of peace. For thirty years we have been lied to, it is time to get over who did what when. Ya know, Gore being a sore loser who wanted people who were not bright enough to understand a ballot deciding who would be president was still hanging around come summer of 2001. So you could say the Clinton / Gore team was hindering the Presidents efforts no matter how small or seemingly insignificant even as 9-11 approached.
9-11 report, fact or fantasy?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008809
I don't know why so many of you people (apparently including Spencer) think it has to be one or the other. The cause and effect relationship between Islam and the West is clear in the context of history. Yes, Islam is violent and agressive, so Spencer is right. Yes, the West has become too liberal, decadent and passive, so D'Souza is right.
Spencer's view is like battling Islam with a lot of weaponry. And D'Souza's view is like doing battle with only armor. You need both to understand how to win.
No, D'Souza's way is like sucking up to your enemy and refusing to fight but to just apologize and beg for forgiveness. Those terrorist monkees and their backwards slaves don't have to watch western movies and MTV if they don't want to.
We should change NOTHING just to try and make murderous barbarians not be
murderous barbarians, because they always will be backwards barbarians until they change on their own. They must change their minds, and learn to behave and get along in the 21st century, or to be destroyed, those are their choices. This, we should continually make abundantly clear to them.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
blame your culture...
.
"Yes, Islam is violent and agressive, so Spencer is right. Yes, the West has become too liberal, decadent and passive, so D'Souza is right."
-- from a posting above
This analysis is faulty. D'Souza did not write a book about how the West is "too liberal, decadent, and passive." He wrote a different book. The main point of his book, its thrust and reason for being, was to tell those who find the West "too liberal, decadent, and passive" that they have a natural commonality of interest with "traditional Muslims" whose only quarrel with that West is with that part which is "too liberal, decadent, and passive." And that is false. D'Souza argues a falsehood, and one that is dangerous because it may hold appeal for those who, insufficiently familiar with the doctrine and practice of Islam, but all too familiar with, and repelled by, that "too liberal, decadent, and passive" Western world, will drop their guard, or fail to put it up, when Islam menaces the entire West as it never has been able to before, not even when Muslim armies were outside Poitiers in the early eighth century, or besieging Vienna in 1683.
Spencer is right. D'Souza is wrong. There is no equivalence.
I can just see D'Souza writing his next book "The roots of Jihad: why Muslims need to get laid" and Robert saying, "That's not the reason for Jihad. That does not address the clear mandates to Jihad in the Koran. That is what needs to be addressed, Dinesh."
Hate is actually a very useful and practical weapon used by Islam in its war to subdue humanity. (And it doesn't cost anything either).
Thus Islam's inciting hatred among its followers can be plainly seen as merely a tool (albeit a very important one) in its jihad war chest. The Kuran's mandate to kill everyone in the world who has not submitted to the will of al-lah would be utterly impossible to achieve without something to accelerate the process.
Propaganda inciting hate among the Muslim masses --instilling in these ignorant people the belief of a pressing need to kill non-Muslims--provides that fillip which galvanizes the Muslim masses to both hate and commit the required mass slaughter of the non-submitting "infidels" (jihad).
Robert Spencer, Britney Spears, the western world's supposed moral decadence, and all that other stuff (like Israel for example) are mere red herrings that are used as propaganda objects in the ongoing Islamic propaganda war against the "infidels". I am certain D'Souza is aware of this.
pythagoras-
You bet. They are all rationalizations.
rational asks:
LOL! I'm sure Mr. Spencer didn't mean D'Souza is claiming that Britney Spears personally "is the problem." Rather, D'Souza is claiming she's a symbol of the Western decadence that enrages Islamists.
So far, Islamists seem to be enraged by:
Art
Sculpture
Movies
Music
Dancing
Singing
Sex
Women with exposed skin
Britney Spears is certainly covered by that list.
"it reminded me of Rod Serling wrapping up an episode of the Twilight Zone, except that the reality of the renewed Islamic assault on civilization is far more disturbing than even the most ghoulish plotline of TZ."
You left out the part that does indeed give this whole reality a Twilight Zone warp: the fact (to pick one fact out of a thousand) that pro-gay-marriage Leftists would (at Harvard) give a standing ovation to a Muslim [President of Iran] who wants to execute gays. When certain right-wingers think they find common moral ground with Islamic puritanism, there is at least the semblance of logic there; when Leftists, however, gush over and sugarcoat the most virulently and medievally anti-liberal belief system in the world, then we have truly entered the Twilight Zone and crossed over into the Outer Limits.
....because Christians would still be committing the "ultimate crime" known as shirk....quote....
So pray tell, Dinesh...what's the "cultural left" supposed to do about shirk?
i have to confess that i had not previously taken very much interest in Britney Spears.
she always seemed a wholesome-looking young woman, and i did catch the news that she had embraced motherhood, but her music had not really grabbed me.
however, i now have a strange pop-video running in my head with Britney and Bobbie (Spencer) engaging in a duet: 'baby, its all my fault'.
so far, i only have the chorus, going on and on it is, and i am worried that it will to drive me crazy, but i think it could prove an important psy-ops weapon, if properly developed.
just have to get a couple of verses sorted....
alladinsane57
This discussion a while ago at frontapege magazine is pretty insightful:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19110
Kevin and Tgusa,
Yes, bin Laden attacked us in 1993, but if you read what I wrote "the biggest", 1993 was nothing compared to 9-11. The 9-11 commission was a bipartisan committee, both repubs and dems were involved. Debunk it if you wish, but it was the only investigation Bush would allow. Why he blocked any other investigation is beyond me, most likely it was because everyone would find out he was soft on terrorism before 9-11 and ignored all of the threats he was being briefed on at the time.
Clinton also did not 'cut and run' out of Somalia either.
"Aideed was moving about Mogadishu openly with little security in June. A Delta team could have arrested him with little difficulty. Following the AC-130 attack on his arms warehouses, however, he went underground and ordered more attacks on the coalition, including American troops, In September, three American troops were killed by Aideed's forces.
Only then did the Pentagon agree to send commandos. The JSOC, which included what the public called Delta, had mastered the art and science of surprise nighttime operations and low-profile, convert operations. In Mogadishu, however, they acted in broad day light with dozens of helicopters clattering into the city. The operations were repetitive and the Somalis learned by watching them. On October 3, 1998, in the famous Black Hawk Down incident, the Aideed militia responded and engaged JSOC, shooting down two helicopters with RPG's Eighteen Americans and probably 1,200 Somalia's were killed.
When the NSC cabinet members met with the President, Clinton was irate. Somalia was not his idea how to spend his first year in office. He had inherited it and the military let him down. He followed the Pentagons advice in June and they were wrong. When the military had finally agreed to send in JSOC, they had acted as though there were no hostile forces operating against them, ignoring their usual tactics. Clinton sat red faced listening to the cabinet members. He was letting them have their time, but he had already decided something. He was done listening to them on Somalia.
When they had talked themselves out, Clinton stopped doodling and looked up. "OK, here's what were gunna do. We are not running away with our tails between our legs. I've already heard from Congress and that's what they all want to do, get out tomorrow. (Note: Who was in control of congress at the time??? Oh ya, it was the republicans.) We're staying. We are also not gunna flatten Mogadishu to prove we are the big badass superpower. Everybody in the world knows we could do that. We don't have to prove that to anybody.
We are going to send in more troops, with tanks and aircraft and everything else they need. We are going to show force. And we are going to keep delivering the food. If any body f*cks with us, we will respond, massively. And we are going to get the UN to finally show up and take over. Tell Boutros he has six months to do that, not one day more. Then....we will leave."
As the meeting broke up, Clinton indicated for Lake and me (Richard Clark) to follow him through to the side door into the outer area of the Oval Office. "I want us running this, not the State Department or the Pentagon." He looked at me. "No more troops get killed, none. Do what you have to do, whatever you have to do."
In the days that followed, American snipers were place on roofs and walls of the US compounds. When they saw any Somalia's with guns, they took them out. There were little or no publicity about these deaths. When US forces went back on the streets, they went with tanks. Six months later, the US finally handed over operations to the UN peacekeeping force. There had been no more American Casualties."
Against All Enemies
pg 86-87
Richard Clark
Richard Clark served Regan, the first Bush and Clinton administrations on the National Security Counsel Staff. As clearly stated above, we effectively stayed in Somalia for 6 months after the Black Hawk Down incident, until the UN took over operations. If the republicans in congress at the time had it their way, we would have cut and run the next day.
Clinton also never had the chance to kill OBL, the myth has been busted long ago. I can find the publication and post it if you all want.
Gore hindering the president is ridicules. If Bush allowed Gore to effectively divert his presidential duties then I would have to say Bush was not only weak on terrorism, he was also weak in politics and a weak president.
for what ever the muslim thinks about the West's liberal tendencies, they only hide their unsavory human degenerates in turkish bathhouses, and households of multiple wives and concubines of the rich muslim men of sowdi land. wonton raping of women,childhren boys go unheard in the muslim courts, honour killingss as well. l rather live in a Western liberal land than muslim cesspoolstan. this Dinesh D’Souza is quite ignorant of where the true human abuses exists and florishes without any actions by any mulims courts.
kleebright you seem to want to rewrite history, please do not lower yourself here, most of know better, clinton was a party boy and was more interested in polls in his presidency. we have bigger fish to fry like islamist don't give a frig if your a Republican or Democrat. ps Dems want to close G'itmo, give rights to terrorists, stop profiling, ect,ect. so give it up. the enemy is OBL and his boys.
D'Souza argues a falsehood, and one that is dangerous because it may hold appeal for those who, insufficiently familiar with the doctrine and practice of Islam,
Spencer is right. D'Souza is wrong. There is no equivalence.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2007 02:18 PM
D'Souza is dangerous by many accounts, he ignores most of brutal Islamic history since 700 throughout the world.
Muslims are dangerous lot there is nothing more to it.
just popped back in to say that i am now being tormented by the chorus of 'Baby, blame me one more time'.
If lovin' you is wrong -- I don't wanna be right...
Why does Dinesh attack Britney Spears? Despite her no-underwear antics, she is one of the few in 'Hollywood' who belongs more to the Right than the Left. First, the GOP rebuffed her offer to perform for the GOP convention in 2004, and now, Dinesh bunches her with the Hollywood Leftists, thereby driving her into the arms of the Left. While at the same time accusing us of driving traditional Muslims into the hand of the Jihadis. (For conservatives, she waited until marriage to have her children, remained a virgin for the longest time, etc.)
I'll take Britney as an ally against the Jihad, anyday. Assuming, of course, that she'd be an anti-Jihad warrior if she knew that Jihadis hate her and are gunning for her.
"I'll take Britney as an ally against the Jihad, anyday...."
-- from a posting above
Puh-leeze. There are limits.
Qualis Rex said: "I don't know why so many of you people (apparently including Spencer) think it has to be one or the other. The cause and effect relationship between Islam and the West is clear in the context of history. Yes, Islam is violent and agressive, so Spencer is right. Yes, the West has become too liberal, decadent and passive, so D'Souza is right."
Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 1, 2007 02:06 PM
Hugh said: "This analysis is faulty."
Indeed. What was Islam's excuse 1400 years ago, well before the West's descent into liberalism, decadence and passivity. We appear to have a D'Souza fan boy in Qualis.
Zena, I am not rewriting history, it's already in the books. Whether or not you read it, acknowledge it and accept it is up to you.
I am not lowering myself by sharing my opinion. I understand I am the minority on these forums but I am here for the same reasons as all of you. The threat of Jihad. My earlier statements were merely defending the statement by Texican "Bill Clinton was weak in the 1990s", which I completely agreed with at one time. Then I decided to stop listening to everyone else and start educating myself. To my dismay, I found that Bill Clinton was way more strong on terrorism then Bush. That was until Bush had the 9-11 fire lit up under his butt. All of this information is available to everyone. I believe people get set in their ways and no matter how many facts are out there, they will still deny it because they don't want to believe it.
Jihad is the threat, the results of 9-11 were the failure of the past 5 presidents. Some of them did more, and others did absolutely nothing.
Sure Hugh. I draw the line at Sharon Stone or Michael Jackson, not Britney Spears.
THE need of the time is an USA-Europe-Israeli-Indian axis (or call it Christian-Jews-Hindu axis) to battle the cancer of Jihad becasue if not controlled now it will spread and spread and one day it may be too late.
In short all these religion dont hate each other, but Islam hates all these three religion and uniting is neccasry to fight the cancer
Indiana_Jones: Don't hold your breath waiting for Europe to come on board to fight against Islam's global jihad.
Continental Europe is NOT going to be coming on board to help America deter global jihad (not at all) with the possible exceptions of Italy and Denmark. The EU "leaders" will block anything like Europe coming together to help America defeat Islam's global jihad in the near future if only because they are sincerely hoping to undermine America's role in the world (remember that idiot blogging that "america" was a "disease"? Europeans generally don't even QUESTION that sort of thinking anymore). Europe values its realtion to the petroleum barrel far more than it values its relationship to America or human life itself.
The UK may help us out some (if it can, but it is starting to look like the UK is going the way of France). Eastern European nations, especially the Serbs, may be of some help to us inspite of the EU's best efforts to stop them from coming on board to do so. THEY remember Islam's horrors with revulsion (why western Europeans don't is one of life's mysteries).
America will have to look elsewhere for help. India may help--but by the middle of this century Hindus may well be in the minority in the Indian subcontinent owing to Islam's demographic war against the "infidels." India's long term future could be Islamic too (I hate to say it).
Japan may be able to offer us some assistance against jihadists, as I don't think they are all that happy to see an Asia subservient to either an increasingly imperialistic China or Islam.
Steven L. writes: So far, Islamists seem to be enraged by:
Art
Sculpture
Movies
Music
Dancing
Singing
Sex
Women with exposed skin
----------------------------------------------
Don't forget to add the following to the list:
School girl Christian kids
Buddhist monks
Ice-cream vendors
... and the list goes on and on
Actually, pretty much everything that is not Islamic enrages Islamists. Hold on, I forgot, they even hate each other (Shia vs Sunni vs Ahmediya). I guess the safe thing to say then is Islamists are simply enraged by everything!
Hi Pythagoras
I agree with your analysis about countries which may or may not help against jihad.
Europe : I agree with Briggette gabriel (seach for her video on youtube.com). She rightly said Europe is almost Eurabia no longer Europe. The rate at which the Islamic people give birth it may soon be correct if not already.
UK : A couple of more incident and the British might finally wake up. So will the Danish.
Japan : I guess it will take some convinicing.
India : If asked now it may help ,although I have a feeling that they feel neglected becasue in the past when they faced terrorism and they tried to bring it to the attention of the world that they are bieng subjected to unfair jihad ,we ignored it as regional problem.
I know we ignored them because when I used to read about Kashmiri militant reports and Indian claims of Pakistani,I personally used to think that they are blowing it out of proportion.
But after 9/11 and recent happenings in UK/USA -- I guess they were victims of jihad long before us and they waged a lonely war and well seem to have waged it succesfully atleast till now.
Israel : we all know it is wagingthe same war for last 50 years.
It is still not too late. We need a strong leader who can call a spade a spade and throw the PCness in garbage and take some decsions.
One cannot take the feather of peace and negotiate with people who come to the table with an AK47 to negotiate.
It has nothing to do with morality or immorality, it has to do with control and dominance. Britney is being used as a "scape-goat", which is something every brain-dead Islamic wants to use for their invasion. Now, as for Britney, "well she can do a Jihad on my mind all day long !"
Hey Britney, stay beautiful, we love it !
I don't have much use for Whoreney Spears, Slutstina Putalera, or any of their decadent like, but Dinesh misses the point about the problem. Such decadence is only relevant in that it undermines the moral cohesion of the West in our struggle against Islam. Without such things, the enemy would still be the same but perhaps we might be a little stronger in our resistance.
None of this has anything to do with Britney Spears and her over-exposed ilk in the media. It's all propaganda with NO substance at all.
Entertainers like Ms. Spears are pure and simple convenient propaganda objects to be exploited by mosque leaders to stir up antipathy against the west among brainwashed Islamic multitudes. BUT---
Islam has got to be the narrowest mindset ever seen on earth. Literally nothing outside the Kuran is allowed and anything that is constitutes the work of satan to Muslim world's leaders, and is set to therefore to meet with a horrifying end (if they have anything to say about it).
Anything that is popular in the west is likely to be anti-Islamic in the minds of the Muslims world's mosque leaders. If it isn't Britney Spears, it's going to be someone or something else. It could be solar energy. It could Hawaiian vacations. it could be rodent control. It could be hula hoops. it could be greeting cards or Life Savers.
Islamic propaganda can and will single out virtually anything western for propaganda purposes. So get used to it and know that it won't go away. Even after Britney (finally) does.