Thailand Jihad Update. "Insurgents kill 8, including 12-year-old boy, in southern Thailand," from the Associated Press:
BANGKOK, Thailand: Eight people including a 12-year-old boy were killed Monday in attacks by suspected Islamic insurgents in southern Thailand, police said.
Three Muslims, including the boy, were killed when the pickup truck they were traveling in was ambushed, said police Lt. Sarawut Mahachai.
Two 25-year-old students and the 12-year-old were returning from a funeral for a local Islamic official who died in a bomb explosion earlier Monday in Yala province's Bannang Sata district, he said. Seven other people were wounded in the ambush.
Jihad against construction foremen, ice cream vendors, and rubber tappers:
Other victims included a Buddhist construction foreman and an ice cream vendor who were shot dead, and a Muslim villager who was wounded by a bomb blast.
A Muslim rubber tapper was shot and killed and a Thai soldier was also wounded by a bomb.
Another Buddhist was killed in a drive-by shooting in Pattani province's Nong Chik district, police said.
Where is the outrage from the Muslim community? What? Is it okay for Muslims to kill Muslims, but not for Non-Muslims to kill Muslims, or, heaven forbid, six Imams to be singled out while acting suspicious on an commercial airline???
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
I am sick and tired hearing "insurgent."
Violent Jihadist is the only acceptable combination of words.
These friends of Nassem and Abdullah sure are violent.
Hey Abdullah how will you spin this one as the fault of the US and the UK? This sure must make you and Naseem happy. I'll bet you guys cant wait till Islam takes over the world and teaches everyone how to live in peace like in Thailand?
How depraved.
Interesting.. the media LOVES to report on our soldiers getting killed [not because they decry the killing of Americans, but because they think it will lower morale both at home and on the battle field.]
Contrast that with a report I found in the Monday Times.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html
They want to censor Blogs. The founder of Wackypedia, Himmy Wales, is involved in creating these "guidelines".
Given what I just read on a CLOSED Wikki entry about racism - and waich countries were discussed and which were not - gives me a pretty good idea where this would lead..
..One day in the future Spencer and Hugh will have to submit this blog to Keith Ellison's office.
Sorry if this is off topic, but we all know the ME and other terrorist blogs won't be the ones to "tone down". These rules are being made for US.
Pick the reason:
1. Bush’s fault for invading Iraq.
2. Traditionalist Muslims (D’Souza’s friends) outraged over Britney Spears video.
3. Israel’s existence.
4. Neocon push for democracy in Thailand.
5. British Colonialism.
6. Islam.
Need a hint?
I suspect ice cream prices are high in Thailand. Each week they seem to wack another.
They should have a profile of them on the World's Most Dangerous jobs....
This Week: Ice Cream sellers in Thailand.
At least the King Crab fisherman get paid good money for their lives.
The Times never reports on moslems killing people - unless the event is 'huge' like it was on 9/11 and in Bali and in London and Madrid!
I really don't know why their 'political correctness' goes out the window when it comes to islamist violence. I guess they feel we 'savage Westerners' could freak out and some of the 'vast majority' of 'peaceful moslems' could somehow come to harm.
Allahfanculo,
I found nothing wrong with Tim O'reilly's post calling for a Code of Conduct. It's needed actually, especially since morons on this blog as well as others post nasty comments. I don't see how this will lead to censorship, or even Spencer and co. having to submit their material to Keith Ellison's office.
Muslims attacking ice cream vendors again!....
....I suppose the vendors were actually working a real job to earn real money to feed a real family....
...individualism, capitalism, and a desire to earn honest money....all are not on a Muslim terrorists agenda...
...Jihad on ice cream vendors is a hellish thing to see...
And of course, if the MSA, CAIR, or muslim "scholars", "students" or bloggers anywhere have anything to say about this, it will be that the traumatizing stress of Israel's occupation of the country of Palestine caused it. Either that or , if they address the Buddhist-Muslim conflicts entirely, bitch and moan about the Thai's horrible, terrible, very bad treatment of oppressed muslims and ignore stuff like this entirely.
I'll bet it's because they caught the Buddha smiling.
Can't have any joy with Islam.
...Jihad on ice cream vendors is a hellish thing to see...
Posted by: exsgtbrown
Wait till they figure out that they can use ice cream truck bombs!
wrathofasma
What do you think of #3 on his list?
While Tim O'Reilly thinks that it's mainly in repressive regimes that anonymity is important, that would eliminate the anonymity of those of us in the West who are posting. But while he is partly right that people say things that they wouldn't say if recognized, he's ignoring the fear factor. I for one, in the past, have posted on mailing lists under my real identity, since the subject in question (happened to be technology) wasn't one where I risked getting myself targeted for violence because of any of my views on various products from Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Apple, et al. That's not the case here, where negative comments on Islam can earn one death threats from your friendly neighborhood Mohammedans.For items 1 & 2, I believe J/W already does it. There have been occasions that my comments have been deleted, and I've never held it against Robert, Hugh & Co: I know that there are idiots who'd affix my views on them. Now, while I have been known to steal, er embrace some of their opinions, particularly Iraq, I don't know of too many who would attack me on the grounds of what Robert has written. Conversely, it's idiotic, but unfortunately the case, that Robert does get tarred by some of our opinions.
To Infidel Pride,
I think those critics just need to give it up and learn conceptually that views posted here don't necessarily reflect his views and Mr.Spencer should not let these critics coerce him into banning comments at will. It's been mentioned who knows how many times that we do get posters here who invade and call for an islamic caliphate spanning all non-muslim areas and advocating Shariah law as the best justice system there is. I'm not sure how much more obvious it could be those are not Spencer's views.
Likewise, there are some posters here who would disturb even those in the West who are serious about the threat of jihad. It's understandable that one would be offended by posters forcing legal immigrants of muslim background out of the country, banning all immigrants from muslim-majority areas, while not considering what to do about Christians, secularist or muslim dissidents whose livlihood is treatned in those areas, and asking all potential immigrants what religion they are and banning them if they even say "muslim". Just like it's understandable that one would be offended when posters argue that Israelis should give up their state and live in dhimmitude under Islamic arabs, persecuted Christians and Hindus in Muslim nations deserve their fate, and other such lunacies.
The tricky part is for such vehemnet critics to click on Robert Spencer's name in the Jihad Watch section, actually read what it says, and actually read his articles in Jihadwatch, Frontpage and elsewhere. He has never advocated the positions I talked about above, nor said that muslims interested in taking sides with civilization against violent jihad a should not be welcome here. Really, this is not a complex or difficult concept.
Self determination.
While I can see why some people would be bothered, this would fall under the 'Benes decree' analogy: there are several good reasons why we don't want Muslim immigrants here - legal or not. To wit:
- There is no good way of distinguishing Jihadis from non-Jihadis, particularly given the license that Muslims have in practicing taqiyya;
- Aside from the way Infidels are treated in Islamic countries, the fact that Muslims tend to be a troublesome minority whenever they form a significant percentage of the population - be it in Israel, Serbia, Russia, India, Western Europe, Australia, Philippines, Thailand, et al makes it a worthwhile exercise to first end legal Muslim immigration, accompanied by making it harder to be halal - whether it's handling pork packages in Target, not allowing alcohol or canines in cabs, unapologetically profiling Muslims, et al so that Muslims not planning Jihadi attacks wouldn't want to come here in the first place.
- As for banning immigrants from Muslim majority areas, I understand why a lot of people who are sympathetic to dhimmis in Islamic lands would be turned off by that. However, the safety and well being of native Infidels should be priority #1. It's not impossible, or even difficult, for Muslim Arabs to pass off as Coptic/Maronite/Assyrian/Zoroastrian/____ refugees and then carry out major attacks on the West, or otherwise, turn out to be Muslim later, and keep doing what Muslims are doing now. So banning all immigration from Islamic lands isn't a genocidal idea: should an ethnic cleansing of Infidels in dar ul Islam happen, their blood won't be on the hands of the US, or other Infidel countries that refuse to accept them, but rather, it will be on the hands of the Muslim countries that allow it to happen. Note that none of the posters usually calls for anything like that to happen to Muslims here - the worst that they advocate is for large scale expulsions.
- Given that under it all, Islam is a composite of a religion and a totalitarian ideology very well blended, it's not a violation of First Amendment rights to ask visa applicants whether or not they are Muslims. Years ago, when I was filling in a visa application (this was in 1991), one of the questions I had was whether or not I was a Communist. Basically, there was a clear message that if I was, I was unwelcome (not that that's stopped the crowds in Santa Cruz and Berkeley from doing their thing). Given that Islam has aspirations very similar to world communism vis a vis the Infidel world, it's perfectly legitimate for US immigration laws to not only exclude Muslims from entering, but deporting any converts to Islam once they have immigrated. Also, given the track records of high profile Muslim converts - Suleiman Faris, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, et al, there is a good case to be made to put any US citizens who convert to Islam under surveillance as potential enemy combatants. Not to mention the threat of a demographic Jihad.
- Another reason for people to be turned off is ignorance. I've read a lot of extreme views here, including writing my own, but all that is borne of knowing the truth about Islam. As a former poster Interested put it, "I didn't have any problems with Islam when I was ignorant about it."
Now there are occasionally postings that I do find distasteful, like equating Xerxes of the Persians (in the movie 300) (when Persians were Zoroastrians) with Ahmadinejad: this does send a message that being ethnically Persian itself is a crime for which there is no exit. I do get turned off by such comments, given that there is nothing that Zoroastrians have done to deserve any of that. Genuine racism isn't something we should embrace, although there are sometimes cases where the only resistance to Islam might be a racist party, and then the question arises as to whether such a party deserves to come to power.But I do think it's legitimate to have one set of standards for Infidels, and another for Muslims, particularly given the very elaborate strategies that they have for Islamizing the West - worst of all, using our very own freedoms and tolerance against us. I believe that if people come here after knowing what Islam is about - be it from Robert's books or real historical sources - they would quite understand the emotions behind a lot of the comments, even if they may choose to react differently themselves.
wrathofasma
You are a bit optimistic here. Better some wild comments on JW/DW and other sites than to ONCE AGAIN let some bullying regulation come in!
Good intentions pave the road to hell. see also under: 'fairness doctrine' in talk radio. Then why not 'fairness' on TV and in the newspapers?
They delete plenty of comments here already and they can even block a name. So why let outsiders come in and bully Robert & Co. into becoming more PC?
Why don;t you check out the wacky world of Wikkipedia so you can get a first-hand look at what things will be like if they get to set the standards!
I oce listed my definition of jihad on Wiki and it was gone in minutes. I reposted it a few times and soon found myself banned' and had some nasty email from a smarmy PC person who is a Wiki 'administrator' in my email.
NOOOO Thanks!!!!
There are WAY too many moslem activists with time on their little bloodstained hands busy flagging things they don;t like on Youtube and Wiki and god knows - everywhere else!
They will USA and PLAY our PC brigaddes like and orchestra if they get this implememted.
Beware the Beginnings!
Or: Once the Camel has his head in the tent the body is sure to follow.
We are WAY better off with a 'diversity' of comments on here than we are with a soft-washed version! It will also cut dsown on participation.
and trust me - the Jihadist websites will NOT adhere to the 'standards' they seek to have us operate under.
The case is in the pudding. Look at all the special rules they get in OUR OWN lands!! And the nasty rules they have us under should we travel to theirs.
NOOOO THANK YOU!!!!
No more rules for the Mos to use against us!!
wrathofasma
You are a bit optimistic here. Better some wild comments on JW/DW and other sites than to ONCE AGAIN let some bullying regulation come in!
Good intentions pave the road to hell. see also under: 'fairness doctrine' in talk radio. Then why not 'fairness' on TV and in the newspapers?
They delete plenty of comments here already and they can even block a name. So why let outsiders come in and bully Robert & Co. into becoming more PC?
Why don;t you check out the wacky world of Wikkipedia so you can get a first-hand look at what things will be like if they get to set the standards!
I oce listed my definition of jihad on Wiki and it was gone in minutes. I reposted it a few times and soon found myself banned' and had some nasty email from a smarmy PC person who is a Wiki 'administrator' in my email.
NOOOO Thanks!!!!
There are WAY too many moslem activists with time on their little bloodstained hands busy flagging things they don;t like on Youtube and Wiki and god knows - everywhere else!
They will USA and PLAY our PC brigaddes like and orchestra if they get this implememted.
Beware the Beginnings!
Or: Once the Camel has his head in the tent the body is sure to follow.
We are WAY better off with a 'diversity' of comments on here than we are with a soft-washed version! It will also cut dsown on participation.
and trust me - the Jihadist websites will NOT adhere to the 'standards' they seek to have us operate under.
The case is in the pudding. Look at all the special rules they get in OUR OWN lands!! And the nasty rules they have us under should we travel to theirs.
NOOOO THANK YOU!!!!
No more rules for the Mos to use against us!!
Sorry everyone for my typos.
This Jimmy-the-whale from Wackypedia dictating the rules of the Blogs is truly frightening and definitely a stomach-turner for me.
Obviously some well-meaning folks like Wrath seem to disagree.
But IMHO we o NOT need any chilling effect of any kind to hamper the expression of opinion. THAt is what the enemy wants. The internet is all we have. It is more importtant to us than it is to them.
Our governments work against us and they try to manipulate and censor us every step of the way.
THEIR gvernments.. are busy lobbying the UN and getting world-wide anti-islam-commenting banned in all countries. Don't you see this is the beginnign of world-wide sharia law??!!!
So let's not give in on this one without a HUGE FIGHT!!
To Infidel Pride,
Some valid statements there, but in reality the West is not likely to ever get to the point where banning everyone from muslim-majority nations and banning everyone labeled as "muslim" will happen. Although wanting to do it is udnerstandable in today's circumstances, it remains not only amoral but also unrealistic. Moreover, even Mr. Spencer himself, from what I've seen, has not ever atcually given his support behind such measures, perhaps because he is opposed to discrimination against muslims as well as non-muslims from islamic areas who are genuinely interested in siding with civilization agaisnt jihad. It could also be because he knows full well such measures are not going to be even remotely realistic anytime soon, at least not in the West. In countries like China, Ethiopia, Kenya, Burma or Vietman the story might be different, and in that case I denfinitely don't want to waste time forcing them to be accomodating as we are.
What would be sublime, so to speak, is to finally at least take the fundmental steps to protect against jihad in the non-muslim world. For starters, all mosques, madrassahs and Islamic schools that recieve any funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain or other Arabian nations should be declared hate institutions, and their speakers should be treated exactly like we treat KKK members, White Nationalist organizations, Nazi advocates and Hitler youth, if not more harshly. They should have already been banned as hate speech, not protected by the First Ammendment. Needless to say, we need to shut down Al-Jazeerah in the West forever, whose primary purpose continues to be using the "alternative news" facade to mind-warp young muslims into taking up global jihad, suggesting all non-muslims who resist global jihad are Imperialist fascists. All groups trying to promote Da'wa in prison populations need to be jailed on charges of incitement to violence. And muslims who object to increased profiling, at airports or anywhere else, and try to sue to other such measures, need to know they could be in danger of having their citizenship revoked and be ejected from the country.
The West and other non-muslim nations need to get started on these measures before we even think about how to proceed further. As Pipes, Spencer, Emerson and others have noted, the muslim populations' reactions to these measures can help us separate jihadis from genuine peaceful ones, see how big each group actually is and determine where to go from there.
And honestly, I most Westeners, even those concerned about militant islamization, really do not want to get to the point where refugees from the Sudan, Nigeria, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan of elsewhere are forced back to more endless suffering or to have their families risk massacring as a result, regardless of if they are muslim or non-muslim. Nor do we really want to get to the point where asylum seekers or those wanted to provide a half-way decent life for their families are asked "are you muslim" upon entry. Besides, probably need refugees from these countries, both non-muslim and secularist/nominal muslim, to warn Westerners about the effects of trying to hard to accomodate militant islamics. Recall how many posters here on JW are escapees from Islamic nations and how helpful their perspectives are; do we really want to be turning them all back?
It's going to be hard enough implementing the measures I talked about, just as it is convincing many Westerners that the reason the Islamic world is at odds with us is not because of "the Iraq War", or "support for Israeli atrocities in Palestine" or "Indian atrocites in Kashmir" or not providing enough job opportunites to muslims in Europe, "cramming them in ghettos" or other such bulls**t.
Abdullah wrote: "self-determination".
Yes, heroes killing unarmed civilians and children in their valiant fight for self-determination. You know, AbDULLah, there is a certain invective expression containing an old Anglo-Saxon word that I seldom use, except in the most extreme of cases; and if you were standing in front of me now, I would gladly say it to your face.
Of course, Moslems here in SE Asia do their utmost to prevent the self-determination of non-Moslems who are trapped in Islamic tyrannies. Witness the carnage and slaughter before East Timor's independence, or the bombings in Bali carried out partly in revenge against Australians for their country's support of an independent Timor. Maybe Christians in the Spice Islands or the Hindus in Bali who are the lest vestige of the real [Hindu]nesia before that archipelago became infected with Islam, should assert their right for "self-determination". Or how about the disenfranchised Chinese and Indians, who despite their large numbers, have to put up with the indignities and restrictions placed upon them by Islamic Malaysia? Then there is the ridiculous Sultanate of Brunei, with its ban on bibles and its spiteful denial of citizenship rights to non-Moslems. In contrast to all of this, Thai Moslems enjoy EXACTLY the same rights as Thai Buddhists. They even have a Moslem general running the country.
AbDULLah, (I'm not sure if you are a real Mohammedan or just some annoying left-wing quisling troll) but whatever you are, you are something not very pleasant; and I will leave it at that.
An Addenum to last comment,
It remains noteworthy that in places like Israel, India, Russia, (esp Chechnya or Dagestan) or Serbia, or Indonesia and Thailand it is almost always mosques and other institutions supported by the Arabian penninsula that cause a bulk of the problems. In the Balklans, for example, Serbs and even a good number of Muslims acknowledge that before the 1990s wars, religion was a trivial and superficial method of determining Serbs from Muslims, it was middle east-supported leaders like izetbegovic who invited middle eastern support, and him with the Saudi-backed institutions that turned the Balkans into a Dar al Islam, Dar al Harb conflict. The same is true in Russia; many terrorists in Chechnya and Dagestan, though they are of sufi background, are recent converts to Wahhabism and other ideologies from Saudi and elsewhere, and are often in conflict with not only native christians but local islamic leaders as well due to their Saudi-bacled ideology. Posters here have acknolwedged that that's where India's troubles largely arrive. I've even seen posters on other political forums from southern Thailand state that ideologies imported from Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere are what caused a bulk of the jihad problems in that region. So it's not to say we can't empower ourselves against jihad simply by taking the most fundmental steps against ideologies imported form Arabia and elsewhere in the middle east.
Abdullah
Self determenation?
I am in my apartment in BKK. I can hear the call to prayer from here five times a day. The buildings next to me are full of muslim refugees from failed islamic paradises, like sudan. I returned from the south were all the Muslims were allowed to practice their religion, without any hinderence. The hijab clad sisters were unmolested. There are mousqes at all bus stops and train stations, and plenty of halal food. They are even allowed to run their own schools with government money. What more do they want then to rule and destroy the buddhist culture? Give Muslims an inch and they will take a mile until they kill you.
Maxwell
You are right about the reality of the situation. My point was more in defense of fellow posters who advocate the things you pointed out could potentially turn off supporters. I don't expect any of the things that need to be done as doable because of this very lack of will. And I also believe that it will end up in a world wide bloodbath.
Hopefully, it will devour myopic leaders worldwide - they are the last people who deserve to survive any of this.
The South is 'restive' again:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/09/thailand-the-south-is-restive-again/
Bali mastermind escapes:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/09/bali-mastermind-suspect-escapes-dawn-raid/
To Infidel Pride,
The only thing I want to say in conclusion is that I personally am hoping we never have to get to the point where anyone from a muslim-majority nation is barred entry in the west and we ask "are you muslim" to all prospective immigrants and citizens. If some people feel that way it is understandable, but I am still find those measures immoral and reprehensible.
I just pray we can start with suggestions outlined above. Then, I would think many jihadist muslims will ultimately end up leaving out of their own will once we become rigid and adament that they either follow Western rules or they find a nation where they don't have to, (and with many Islamic nations, can't) live by Western rules.
The trouble is that being Nice Will Get Us Killed
Imagine if it was America who had bombed one of their ice cream vans,, oh sorry they probably dont have icecream, as Mohammad hates agricuture, there wouldnt be any reason for them to have icecream, as how would they get cows or milk if they are not allowed to have agriculture to get the pastures to have cows...
Allah does not like agriculture; He prefers plundering as His profession ...If we are wondering why there is so much bloodshed, mayhem, beheading and anarchy in the Islamic world, perhaps the above caption will explain the reason for Islamic bloodletting around the globe. It is quite simple to comprehend Allah’s dislike for an agrarian society: Muhammad and his followers had scanty experience with agricultural production. His livelihood was totally dependent upon raids and plunder.
Reading in the hadith from Sahih Bukhari we learn about Allah’s great disdain for agriculture and agricultural implements.
Allah does not like agriculture; He prefers jihad and plunder… (Sahih Bukhari, 3.39.514)
Sahih Bukhari, Volume iii, Book 39, Number 514:
Narrated Abu Umama al-Bahili:
I saw some agricultural equipments (sic) and said: "I heard the Prophet saying: "There is no house in which these equipment enters except that Allah will cause humiliation to enter it."
continuation on Mohammad hating agriculture..and why they slaughter and plunder...
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, O Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfil Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.)."
[Please note that this Hadith has been removed by the compiler from the summarised Translated (by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan) version of Sahih Al-Bukhari. However this Hadith is available in the Internet version of Translation of Sahih Al-Bukhari]
How did Muhammad earn his living in Medina? What job did he do? In what occupation was he employed? What business was he involved in? All these questions remain unanswered. Except for the following Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, all the Sunna, the Sahih Ahadith, the Sirah (biography) never mention of any form of acceptable and/or dignified profession/occupation that Muhammad engaged in to support himself and his retinue of ever increasing number of wives and concubines: Here is that incredible Hadith:
EXACT QUOTE AND FOOTNOTE, VOL-IV (88) CHAPTER.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (SA) said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear,(1) and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya"
Footnote:- (1) "Under the shade of my spear" means "from war booty".
That’s right, Muhammad, the messenger of Allah earned his livelihood by plunder; the above hadith is very clear on this. Please note that this hadith has been carefully removed from the Internet version of Sahih Bukhari. This
hard-to-believe hadith can only be found in the original print version of the Translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. [Ref: The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, Vol.IV (page 104) by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Islamic University—Al-Medina Al-Munauwara] Please consult the reference provided if you have doubt. It is also interesting to note that in the footnote the translator explains the meaning of ‘spear’ as ‘booty’.
Here is another hadith, also from Sahih Bukhari, which says that Allah made Muhammad rich through war and conquest (booty from raid and plunder).
Sahih Bukhari Volume iii, Book 37, Number 495:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. "
Now do you figure that D'Souza will tell us that the murder of the Thais is due to American decadence?
Maybe it's because of all those Thai Zionists.
No doubt insane Pelosi will want to rush over to Thailand to lick the murderer's feet.
Infidel Pride.. you are so correct, what you have said is fantastic... and spot on...
I have no problems excepting people from countries who have the same background as us with the same God and ideals, simply because experience and reading has taught me that no where in history has two totally different races with different gods have ever been able to happily live together for long once their numbers increase...
Our world governments seem to be deviod of common sense in this area, and except for Asian countries the UN has pushed for the mixing up of races, ...
All western countries will allow immigrants to buy land and business but no one says anything about not being allowed to own land in places like Japan/China etc and good on them they are being careful for the sake of their people...
There was very little problems in countries where the same mix of people lived until we allowed immigrants of totally different backgrounds, and that isnt to say that there are not some fantastic immigrants, but unfortunately it also doesnt mean that people from totally different backgrounds will get along with each other as there are biggots in ALL races.
joeblough, you are so right, Muslims cant even get along with their neighbours and every country that Muslims land in they blame some one else for their problems,, it is always Muslims and someone else...
they dont seem to look and see that others get along together.. The Germans, Duch, English, French, Americans, Australians, etc we all get along together of a sorts, and eventually we all intermarry and become one race...
This is what the UN wants for us all but it wont happen when races are so totally different...too many bogots on all sides... I too wanted it to happen and thought it would when I knew nothing and was ignorant...
Gaye
You sound like a victim of 1970's utopianism, although you are likely to be much younger than that would imply.
There is still much glorious and joyful good in the world.
What the utopians didn't, couldn't, wouldn't understand was that one must sometimes fight to preserve that good.
A curious insight into the free world's lack of fighting spirit comes from Ann Coulter, who remarked that the WWII generation was so horrified by what large scale modern industrialized war could look like that they lost all taste for fighting -- even to continue to defend the values for which they had fought WWII.
Debatable, but interesting.
In any case we are confronted with evil again.
The mohammedan idiots are filled with groundless mistaken confidence that our revulsion against the Blitz Kriegs and Nankings and Dresdens and Hiroshimas of the last century represents an irreparable weakness. I think they will eventually push us to the point that they will learn otherwise. They will learn what it means to provoke the richest and most industrially and scientifically advanced civilization of human history to the point of all-out war.
After WWII America rebuilt an entirely new world economy and the industrialized world at least has enjoyed unforeseable benefits. Even the old Axis powers were raised up. And our lives have been pretty sweet.
Keep the faith. We will prevail.
Giving up utopia doesn't mean giving up the good.
"Abdullah
Self determination?
....you can't handle self determination, that is why you rely on crazed, finger pointing, bearded Islamic clerics to tell you what to say and what to do.....
...Once you become Muslim, you give up your individualism and your ability for self determination....you must follow the will of "Allah" as told to you by your favorite cleric...
....sooner or later you must seek to spill blood, it could be your neighbor, the clerk at your neighborhood store, your fellow Muslim, or even the lowly ice cream vendor pedaling an ice cream container on a bicycle....but kill, you will, you must,...because the cleric told you so....
.....Islam prevents people from seeing the truth...and Muslims hate the truth, especially when the infidels know it....
No joeblough, I was one of those who thought immigration was a wonderful thing, until a bit of maturity made me look at other nations who have neighbours of different makes...Plus having lived in NZ until I was 35, and my husband taught amongst the Moari people and most of our friends were Moaris, it gave me the impression that muticulturism could work unfortunately that all changed after the Moari marches.
you wrote...Ann Coulter, who remarked that the WWII generation was so horrified by what large scale modern industrialized war could look like that they lost all taste for fighting -- even to continue to defend the values for which they had fought WWII.
Joe, I fear that our going to Iraq has now also made the West loose their desire for protecting themselves again, thus we are wide open to be confronted with another evil again, with the old evil in the background. And no Joe, I am not against protecting ourselves and am one of those who agreed with Mr. Bush going to Iraq. The mistake he made was to warn them that he was coming for 18 months, giving them time to hide all their weapons. I have thus wondered why?? what general warns its enemies that it is coming???
"what general warns its enemies that it is coming???"
.....it isn't the generals, it is the government, and The US government in particular....
...and we are doing it again...we keep warning Iran....
...And we will attack Iran....it is in the cards...no way to avoid it ....
...The military buildup on all of Irans borders has been quietly going on for some time....Iran is surrounded (acutally, by a force larger than that which invaded Iraq)...
...the shootout at the OK corral is near, the marshals are pacing down the street, the Clantons are loading their shotguns, and it is almost high noon....
Gaye
My comments about the utopians were not directed personally at you, but rather at the ideology that I thought you may in earlier times have been fooled by, and since recovered from.
"...I too wanted it to happen and thought it would when I knew nothing and was ignorant..."
An innocent mistake on my part.
Immigration is always problematic, even at the best of times. People can be petty about their differences, and remain quite tribalistic in their sentiments. Assimilation into a new culture is never altogether smooth, quick or effortless. And people tend to be suspicious and often hostile to newcomers.
All that said, the American experience indicates that with some intelligence, discipline and effort immigration can be made to work -- on one condition. The host country has to keep a careful eye on:
* where people are coming from
* what their values are
* what their loyalties are
* how they view the host country and the prospect of assimilation
* What they are like in terms of wealth, health and skills
* why they are coming in
* how well their children fit in in the next generation
Regulate your immigration strictly an sensibly in accord with those issues and, while the initial period can be rough, eventually things work out alright.
What we have with the mohammedans are a bunch of people who in far too great a proportion:
* come from inimical countries
* have medieval and violent values
* are loyal only to their home countries and religion
* view the west with disdain and have no interest in assimilating to what they see as an inferior way of life
* are poor and unskilled
* are here only for the money, with little if any interest in freedom
* whose children are equally if not more hostile to western interests and values
The open immigration policies that all the civilized world have instituted are insane and suicidal.
It is a commonplace in the large American cities to meet highly educated, productive, friendly immigrants who love and understand America who have a far harder time staying here than an equally large number of unskilled, hostile, contemptuous semi-literates.
Gaye
I did not think that you were against self defense, and I didn't want to imply that.
To speak to your point about Bush, I've never really understood his strategy as a whole.
Some elements of it made sense, some didn't and still don't.
That we had to go on the offensive and stay on the offensive he got and still has right.
His apparent hesitation and choice of targets is baffling to me.
I am also pretty doubtful about the appropriateness, and prospects for civilizing Iraq.
He makes a sensible argument that oppressive societies are criminal societies that breed violence and war. And if you could decriminalize a whole society, turn it say, from a tyranny to a benign republic, or even a benign monarchy, you attack the problem at it's root.
What he doesn't, and perhaps can't recognize or compensate for is that he's faced with a chicken and egg problem. Does a violent culture give rise to tyranny, or does a tyranny give rise to a violent culture? You can find examples of both in history.
That's where RS has it nailed. Look at the tenuous hold that civility has in Turkey. The Turks want to maintain an open, modern, secular society on a mohammedan cultural base. Is this possible? So far its looking shaky. And that's with all the toughest military people on the side of the angels!
---------
Finally I don't really think that the current generation has had the time or injuries to tire of the Iraq war. We are not particularly affected by it in our home countries.
Compared to WWII, Iraq has been a walk in the park. No disrespect intended to those who have lost loved ones, or have beloved warriors today in the fight.
But there is simply no comparison between the extent of the privations, violence, casualties or sheer destruction of WWII and Iraq. True, we took bigger casualties in NY than at Pearl Harbor, but WWII was a meat grinder for the soldiers, compared to Iraq. And talk about civilian casualties!
I don't think the west has lost its desire for self defense again. I think the spirit was never really recovered after WWII.
It will be.
But not, I fear, painlessly.
joeblough I can only totally agree with you and you said...He makes a sensible argument that oppressive societies are criminal societies that breed violence and war.
This is why I inserted parts of the quran so show people that indeed this is how Mohammad got his living and perhaps this is why every country which becomes Muslim is desolate, and devoid of anything much but violence to its neighbours and its people..
I too am one who believe that Bush had to do what he did, but to warn them was stupid... I have a list of what the UN gave to Iraq, thus they also knew what Iraq had, and quite honestly, the list is so horrific that it could have ended the WHOLE world... people say that Muslims wouldnt do this as it means their death also but the world as yet hasnt got a grasp on on islam, they dont care if they die on mass as they go to paradise, it is a sacrifice that they would be delighted to be involved in...suicide for Allah's cause is the only way that they can ensure a place in paradise..
joeblough, there is no way that while the Quran is in existance that there can be peace in the world or in the countries surounding Muslim countires.. I have read parts of the Quran and others of their books and other than the first quarter of the quran (while Mohammad had only a very few converts) it is a violent horrific book..
We are all to die for allah in the whole world if we dont submit, and this is for their god so they will keep going, and it is NOT the same God of the Christians..
joeblough you are right the west hasnt perhaps lost its desire to protect itself, but they sure asleep.. and the left sure seem to want us dead also...they do everything to back those who would destroy us...
Joe you said...All that said, the American experience indicates that with some intelligence, discipline and effort immigration can be made to work -
Although I have definetly agreed with everything you have said, I cant agree agree wuth this statement above... A protion of people intergrate, the rest all live together in an area and marry into their own cultures.. and as their numbers grow they take over larger and larger areas, then onece their numbers become over 2 or 3 million what is to stop them starting their own armed forces... All ready here in OZ we have areas where the police are toooo scared to go into even though there are murders every day or week... down in Melborne the people are totally different to in Brisbane were we are living...Many greeks and Italians live there, and at this stage there is peace, simply because we have the same God and similar democratic ways, however no where in history has two totally different races with totally different gods ever been able to live peacefully together for long, once numbers grow to become a force they become a force...
Gaye
We can agree to disagree if you like. Although our differences may be less than you think. But maybe we don't agree about that either :-)
To take Ameicans from Chinese backgrounds as an example:
* there are a great many of them,
* they tend to cluster together into communities where they can
* they are both racially and religiously different from the surrounding population here
* their population has been growing, sometimes steadily and sometimes by sudden spurts since sometime in the 1800's
* a large part (I have no idea of real statistics or proportions but if not a majority, certainly it's a sizeable minority) of this population deliberately maintain their dintinctness by:
---- teaching their children the chinese language
---- maintaining their ancestral religion
---- maintaining their ancestral cultural practices (holidays etc...)
And yet, they have never presented the sort of problem to their white Christian neighbors that you seem to regard as likely. If anything, they have paid a pretty high price in receiving the hostilities and contempt of their neighbors, for the sake of being here.
Our current relations with communist China and the current generation of mainland Chinese is a horse of a different color. Since the communist takeover China has become a threat to the world and inimical to the US. Current "Chinese" culture has changed in radical ways. So people raised under communist rule are quite distinct from previous generations -- to the point that it's nearly a different country from the China before WWII. So this is a different and special issue.
But up to this point things have worked out fine.
Just to casually cite a couple of other examples,
* the Jews in America are assimilated to the point that some are worried that they are losing their religious culture altogether,
* the Koreans have fit in quite smoothly
* the Vietnamese seem to be doing alright
* the Phillipinos are OK
* the black Carribeans are quite clannish, but normally no trouble at all
* I've never even heard a rumor of difficulty with the non-mohammedan black Africans from various parts.
* and to the point of this article the Thais are very well and fine neighbors into the bargain
All those groups being distinct from each other and the majority population in at least religion and in most cases physical "race" as well.
I cited the Chinese above, as I suspect they may be the largest and most obviously distinct immigrant group, not having any real statistics about this sort of thing.
But the general pattern of evidence I see doesn't support your expectations in my view.
I do however believe that the inherent racism of "multiculturalism" and modern leftist thinking presents special problems. And I think this is probably behind NZ's problem with the Maoris. It is certainly affecting America's relations with the current generation of incoming Mexicans.
I also think that the mohammedans, with their imperialist triumphalism and notions of superiority present special problems.
I don't think that you can extrapolate from the data of just one country, i.e. NZ and one population i.e. the Maoris, or from several countries with a single particular group, i.e. the world and the mohamedans, and come up with an accurate prediction for all countries with all groups.
Most people in most circumstances just want to live their lives and be left alone.
The mohammedans have other things on their agenda.
Joe, you talk a lot of sense, probably because most of what you say I totally agree with so I have to say you are talking sense eh....
We also have many wonderful immigrants coming to Australia and NZ . However we have to realise that even Muslims lived peacefully in the beginning until their numbers became enough to become a force, then Allah changed his mind and the Quran became a violent book...we also have to realise that ever since time began that there has not been a total blending of the people in the world other wise after millions of years surely we would all be one race... Throughout the world we have had wars since time began, WHY because of greed, intolerance, hatred, and imaginations.. so I cant see for the life of me why once these people become vast numbers in the countries of their adoption that they will this suddenly change...????... there are tooo many bigots in all races and always will be so although things will go smoothly for a hundred or so years I cant see it lasting. As I said before, no where in history have two totally different races ever been able to get along together for long let alone when they have different gods....
The world will never be rid of the likes of Hitler and Saddam who manipulate their people to war..propaganda possibly plays a big role in hatred also...having said that we have a far better chance of living in peace with these people with their different religions than we do Muslims, because unlike Islam all other religious books teach love, peace, tolerance etc..
Joe, I understand where you are coming from, and I also believe that the left have a massive hand in most of the worlds racial problems, I feel that it is the Fabians/Marxism way of dividing the world (divide and conquer), and throughout history we have had such leaders thus the wars, and at present these nationalities do live happily in the lands of their adoption, but as I said, when their numbers become large enough to become a force and they have a leader who is aggressive, could we end up by being divided like Europe, in the beginning was Europe divided ??? or were they one people...
When the Australian left wing labor government was in government, under the guise of having a voice for their people the government encouraged each group who came to Australia to have their own leaders, and no Joe although there are ever so many wonderful fantastic people from different nationalities here in OZ, they do not all live in peace,... the crime amongst them is horrific...and our own people dont dare go into their areas or else, even the police are to scared to go into many areas....It is not very long ago that one of our politicians (who was helping the Asians) was killed by Asians... Perhaps because he was getting tooo close to the drug leaders...