Pakistan: The Taliban takeover

Assalamau Laikum all,

Back in Pak now after attending a wedding in the UK last coouple of weeks.

Anyhow the situation is hotting up here. I think over the next couple of years India is gonna have to take a lot of moderate muslims who no longer want to live in Pak due to sharia...not me ofcourse...I will stay in my Pak.

All this hubub and worry about Iran getting the bomb is moot. Islam already has the bomb, and radical islam will have it when the talibanesque forces take over Pakistan. And that will happen much sooner than Iran eventually making some kind of cheap knockoff.

For Iran to have the bomb is bad enough, but at least it is in the hands of a state that is accountable for what it does with it. If the talibanesque forces, and its enablers in Lahore, put a strangehold on Mushy, and they will, then Bin Laden will have the bomb. And bin laden is not accountable for what he does with it. If Iran uses the bomb, we know whom to attack. If bin Laden uses the bomb, whom do we attack then? We are back to bombing caves in exchange for one of our cities.

The chance that a bomb will end up exploding on American soil is much greater because of the situation in Pakistan, not the situation in Iran. The Iranian bomb might be detonated on Israel, or not detonated at all. The Pakistani bomb will almost certainly detonate, and it will detonated in NY.

Wow, we have all been looking to the oppressed women in Islam to speak out against the dreadful status of women under Sharia. Especially in the Nations with only a 'Tiny Minority' of extremists.
Well it looks like it is coming.

"For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: "Al-jihad, al-jihad." copied from the story.

OOPS, I not sure this was what we had in mind for them to say. Back to the drawing board.

Mostly unemployed, not all of them are madrasa-educated. They are led by young mullahs who, unlike the original Taliban, are technology- and media-savvy,

And where are these "mostly unemployed" talibunnies getting their funding from? Follow the money, I keep saying. Discover the funding sources and terminate them, and the Taliban will whither away

If Iran uses the bomb, we know whom to attack. If bin Laden uses the bomb, whom do we attack then? We are back to bombing caves in exchange for one of our cities.

When the US went to war against the Germans and Japanese, we leveled Dresden and Hiroshima without regard to how many of the people there were directly responsible for attacks against Americans.

Muslims like to speak of the unity of the Islamic Ummah, the Muslim Nation. There may come a point where the West may have no choice except to hold the Ummah, as a whole, collectively responsible for the actions of any of its members.

Naseem, please review the Three Conjectures

"I think over the next couple of years India is gonna have to take a lot of moderate muslims who no longer want to live in Pak due to sharia...not me ofcourse...I will stay in my Pak."
-- from a posting by Naseem above

Nonsense.

There is no duty for India to take in still more Muslims, even if they are of the self-declared "moderate" kind. The various Indian states have already been far too accommodating in letting in Muslims -- the situation is particularly bad in West Bengal, where a left-wing govenment does nothing to stop, and may even be encouraging, a flow of Muslims away from the Muslim-created mess in Bangladesh, into the saner environs of Infidel India.

Google "Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Moderate Muslims" for more on the premise, and lack of promise, of the "moderate Muslim." For some who cannot arrive at a complete understanding, this concept may be useful ("Moderate Muslims are the solution"), or clung to because, like the Bush Administration in Iraq, those who come up with such formulations do not know quite how to abandon them, or admit gigantic errors of understanding (usually they find it best to pretend they were misunderstood, or never said it, much less kept repeating it, in the first place).

No Infidel nation-state should "rescue" Muslims from the consequences of Islam. They must stay in their own countries, and fight with that "handful" of "extremists" who have "hijacked a great religion." They should start by pointing out all the ways in which this "great religion" has been so "hijacked" -- quoting, wherever they can, chapter and verse, sura and ayat, of the Qur'an, or stories from the authoritative collections of Hadith, and of course, from the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

Forced to confront the immoderate Muslims, "moderate" Muslims will either have to transform Islam, or decide, finally, to jettison the belief-system of Islam altogether. Those who do so, and only those who do so, should be welcomed, as genuine refugees from Islam, as defectors from the Camp of Islam, into the West.

And one must be careful. I know of cases ofMuslims from India who, in order to be admitted into this country, "converted" to Hinduism, then having arrived here, married Christian girls, "converting" to Christianity in the process, then once a baby was born, and they had a guarantee of remaining in this country, divorced the wife, and then revealed that they had been Muslims all along, having gone from Muslim to Hindu to Christian only in order to remian here. Such cases are not uncommon, and highly revealing.

Oh, the divorce? That at least was performed under the laws of the relevant state. No Triple Talaq, as yet, allowed.

The two biggest mistakes the U.S. made in foreign policy:

First: In helping drive the Soviet Union and its puppet Communist government out of Afghanistan.

Second: Overthrowing the Dictatorship of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.

These were the only two forms of governments that could deal effectively with a majority Muslim population.

Neither made execuses or apologies; they simply crushed the Islamic clergy and Islamic institution if they were deemed a threat to the government.

Look at Iran, and multiply it 5 or 6 times, all with nuclear weapons.

Give me a Comminist regime in those countries anytime. They, least, wouldn't believe they're going to paradise after a nuclear exchange. They know what death means.

An amusing detail about the article above: it is by a figure famous in England, Ziauddin Sardar, who fancies himself an "intellectual" and who has long been a stout apologist for Islam. See for example his review of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's book in, I believe, "New Scientist" (or possibly even "Nature"). It was an absurdly apologetic review of an absurd book (Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of "Islamic" science, is the current, supposedly apolitical (making exaggerated claims for Islamic achievements in science, or explaining away the absence of such achievements over the last millennium, apparently is "apolitical" and scholarly) Secretary-General of the O.I.C., the 57-member group of Islamic countries.

For more google "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu" and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh."

The Big Madrassah - like the movie Aliens - it is Monster Central, the giant Womb of Hate.

Assalamau Laikum all,

@Poetcomic1 The Big Madrassah - like the movie Aliens - it is Monster Central, the giant Womb of Hate.

Nonsense...it is an Allah "Hub".

A place to get solace 5 times a day....only for now because of the difficulties in opinion...one has to tread carefully.

It is a bit like when Jesus was on earth....Although Christianity's saviour was about...christians had to tread carefully...and loads of them lied to stay alive....same difference.

A little more from the Archives (don't forget they are there to be consulted and searched through) on Ziauddin Sardar:

"His [Ziauddin Sardar's]autobiographical "Desperately seeking paradise" was described as "enchanting" by Jonathan Dimbleby...
-- from a posting above

Would that be the Jonathan Dimbleby, or his execrable father, who was such a constant promoter of Arafat and the PLO back in the 1970s? I'm not surprised that a Dimbleby should find the autobiography of an obvious phony and flake and apologist for Islam likeZiauddin Sardar "enchanting."

For a very revealing example of the sheer craziness that Ziauddin Sardar offers, take a look at his review of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's apologist history of Islamic science, that attempts to explain away the last thousand years of non-achievement -- look especially at how Ziauddin Sardar seconds the bizarre explanation by Ihsanoglu of why the Muslims, who after all needed accurate time-keeping for their five canonical prayers, never managed to develop time-pieces as happened in the Western world (see David Landes on the development of time-keeping in the Western world).

Bizarre, is Sardar. And even more bizarre is the fact that the reputable magazine "Nature" allowed Ziauddin Sardar to publish this review of Ihsanoglu's apologist history of "Islamic" science.

[Posted by: Hugh at April 17, 2006 10:18 PM]

In a New Statesman article of 6th Feb. 2006 Ziauddin Sardar wrote:

"Then there was this from Will Hutton in the Observer: Islam is 'predominantly . . . pre-Enlightenment'. This statement has several layers of ignorance. It projects Islam "predominantly" as monolithic. It suggests that being "pre-Enlightenment" is inferior to being post-Enlightenment. It assumes that "Islam" and "Enlightenment" have nothing to do with each other - as if the European Enlightenment emerged out of nothing, without appropriating Islamic thought and learning. It betrays an ignorance of postmodern critique that has exposed Enlightenment thought as Eurocentric hot air. And, of course, it frames Muslims as "pre-Enlightenment" irredeemable barbarians."

Read the full article by Ziauddin Sadar, one of those who are able, without the slightest irony, to write such stuff: "as if the European Enlightenment emeged...without appropriating Islamic thought and learning." What Islamic thought? What Islamic learning?

The full article can be found at:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200602060013

Regarding Naseem's comments,

Actually, the only people in Pakistan who we really have a obligation to come to the aid of, if there are indeed any at all, are the non-muslim minorities and the non-Arabized, less Islamized minorities who never had any role in the first place in bringing about Talibanization. Naturally, would include the 1.5 to 2 million Hindu Sindhis still living in Pakiland, the Secularist/Sufi Sindhis, who've managed to keep Islam in their societies tempered as a result of the stength of their indigenous culture, the secret, undergound closet Christians, especially recent converts to Christ, the Balochis and natives of Gilgit Baltistan (Northern Areas).

The obligation to come to the assist of these victims of militant islamization is the same as it is in Sudan, among Black African Christians and secualar muslims in Darfur and Noba. And it Algeria among the mostly Amazigh closet Christians and Muslim/Secualr reformists and democratic and cultural activists. And in Iran/Iraq among the many non-muslim and non Arab minorities. And last but clearly not least among Black African Christians/animists in Nigeria.

This obligation I'm referring to is not necessarily the duty to accept all these peoples as refugees into India or the West either. WHat it means is the duty to back them up, all of the aforementioned peoples, by any and all means necessary in their democratic struggles against their murderous, islamic overlords who when they give off any facade of *moderation* i.e. Pakiland, it is only to get our money and military aid to slaughter more religous and racial minorities. Then, we can finally have scenarios where Islam is either finally reformed as so many hope for or eliminated in much of the islamic world, hence bringing about improvements needed so that maybe for once we don't actually have to be held respnsible for the militant Islamic's endless screw ups.

"If Iran uses the bomb, we know whom to attack. If bin Laden uses the bomb, whom do we attack then?"

Jihadwatcher:

We should make it our policy that if a single Muslim uses the bomb that Muslim's home country will be annihilated. For good measure, Mecca and Medina will be reduced to rubble. Currently, that means Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia are on our hit list. Muslims all over the world will then pray five times daily toward a smoking ruin.
If we make this our policy up front and the world knows about it then the people like Ahmadinejad and bin Ladin will have to choose between Islam and martyrdom. The people who support them will have to make the same choice. The people who just want to live in their oil potentates will also have to decide which is preferable: buying off terrorists and risking their own destruction or simply killing them off.

Neither [the Soviets in Afghanistan nor Saddam] made execuses or apologies; they simply crushed the Islamic clergy and Islamic institution if they were deemed a threat to the government.

Rational:

I think this is only half true. Saddam may have crushed the Islamic clergy within Iraq (many were driven into exile) but he made no bones about his support for terrorists. He played a double game. He dealt ruthlessly with those who posed a threat to his own power but he also helped those groups that sought to inflict harm on the West.
He ran terrorist training camps at a time when most of those groups, unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, had more secular aims.

Were we wrong to drive Saddam out of Kuwait? That appears to be the point at which he began to make connections with the more religiously-based terrorists. He also began currying favor with those groups by paying a bounty to families of suicide bombers. Did that happen during the Iran-Iraq war? I only remember it happening after he was driven from Kuwait and was under the sanctions regime of the UN.

"Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: "Al-jihad, al-jihad."

For all those wringing their hands in despair over the powerlessness of women in islamic countries.....Having effected political change in Pakistan, they don't seem quite so powerless now, do they ?

That's why I have no sympathy for them. The women are as bad as the men, and in some cases, even worse.

And to Hugh,

You have long been conssitent in bringing up critical points about Islam and how the West should deal with it, but your statements on Islamic immigration to beg some questions.

First off, do you expect politicians in the West to be saying "we need to have all immigrants be asked 'Are you Muslim" and every migrant who is even identified as a Muslim will then be turned back"? That some posters here would be inclined to react that way is 100% understandable. That said, aside from the ethical implications do you expect our leaders to ever be saying and enforcing things of that nature?

And there is still the matter how how to incorporate a policy of immigration that provides refuge for those who truly should get it. What that means is, in is, in a nation like Sudan, I would think most Westerners, including posters here, stauchly beleive in our right to grant passage to those being enslaved and genocided there. Would we really want to be saying, from Sudan, if you're a black African christian from the South, we will be glad to come to your aid but if you're a black african from Darfur or Noba, Identified as Muslim, then you can just die as a slave and be massacred for all we care. The same goes for minorities from Pakiland, Algeria and other areas. In Pakiland, minorites like Balochis and Sindhis are much more likely, being less islamized peoples, to assimilate to the West and contribute. Is it necessary to say "Well, if they're *Muslim*, they can all just get slaughtered by Pakis for all we care". And from Algeria and Morocco, as you're said yourself numeorus times, the Amazigh peoples are often WAY more likely to assimilate into the West, and in some cases even become closet Christians upon coming here. Evewn if they still ID themselves as muslim, at the very least they become far more likely to criticize Islam as a political force and demand genuine reform among Islamic communites. So, to the Amazigh migrants, should we be saying, if you're ID'd as *Muslim*, you will be denied entry and your plight among Arabists ignored, no matter how much you could ptoentially contribute to Westenr socieites. And of course, this all applies for the minorities in iran and Iraq.

Don't get me wrong or misinterpret me, I'm not advocating against stricter controls on muslim immigration and curbing their movement here. I support shutting down forever Al Jazeerah and all similar Arabists channels as extreme hate speech, outlawing all Saudi/UAE/Qatar/Egypt funded mosques for the same reasons and subjecting all muslims to at all object to increased profilation to deportation. But what is the exact line to draw at migrants from Islamic areas is the million dollar question.

PMK, I wholeheartedly agree that a nuclear attack initiated by any islamic nation or its "terrorist" proxies should be met with a pre-guaranteed anhiliation of the grand mosque and kaaba. Everything that the jihadists do is for the advance of islam. They would be hard pressed to agree that the advance of islam would be served by vaporizing the black rock.

I'm not saying, of course, that this will necessarily be a deterrent, as the jihadists are no-doubt thoroughly convinced that their moon-god will protect the kaaba. But if an when they act upon this faith, islam must be permanently set back.

Pakistans nukes need to be confiscated. Dont know how, that up to military stratedgy, but putting them into the hands of Imams is the looniest thing possible. India should be very concerned about this turn of events in Paki.

The moderates will escape most likely to Britain. Where they will be repulsed by the drinking and rediscover their religion and work to overthrow the government. To make England islamic.

Or maybe they will pour into India. Where they will be repulsed by the dancing and rediscover their religion and work to overthrow the government. To make India islamic. That is where Pakistan came from and Bangadesh, too.

They might be moderate to some but a muslim always has the potential to work against the country they live in. And if they don't their children will.

maxwell46&2

I would think most Westerners, including posters here, stauchly beleive in our right to grant passage to those being enslaved and genocided there. Would we really want to be saying, from Sudan, if you're a black African christian from the South, we will be glad to come to your aid but if you're a black african from Darfur or Noba, Identified as Muslim, then you can just die as a slave and be massacred for all we care. The same goes for minorities from Pakiland, Algeria and other areas.

No. Color is not the issue here. Religion-the muslim religion/political life/ is the issue.
We are in trouble if most westerners "believe in our right to grant passage" to muslims still.

Would we really want to say let them stay there. Yes.

They should stay and fight for their country.

Or a neighboring muslim country should take them in. After all they ARE a part of the umma.

"Pakiland?" Pakistan? Let them pour into Iran. Or whatever muslim country has their sect. The sunni can go to Saudi, the shia to Iran.

Muslims always seem happy to migrate to other countries but they never seem happy to migrate to an already established islamic nation.

Special Ops teams, report to the runway for Pakistani nuclear warheads control mission, now.

This is one of the main reasons we must get of Iraq. We are spending too much for pointless ground of no value. However Pakistan is now a extream danger to this nation. They are more dangerous then Iran even. The reason is that they are about go jihad on us and they have nukes. Even worse they are handing out their technology to everyone in the Ummah. Iran, several Arabian states, and Egypt all have been helped by Pakistan. So why we have been focused in Iraq other dangers have appeared and our leadership is beyond lost on how to deal with it.

Once again Sun Tzu could have made this statement yesterday and it would be just as true as it was in 500 B.C. He said...

"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." Sun Tzu, the Art of War

What fits the "protracted campaign"? That would be Iraq!

What fits "other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity" That would be Iran, Pakistan, the Ummah in general!

The sad part those who have read this site for the last 3 years know more then our leaders. We knew this was coming. You could have seen it from a mile away and all you needed to do was to read their religious books and to read this site.

We are not fighting hostile states....we are fighting a hostile people which is known as the Islamic Ummah!

To Borg,

I see where your are coming from, but you're still missing my fundamental point.

First off, about the issue of Christian vs Muslim from Sudan, the issue was is it appropriate to get to the point where inncoent people escaping slaughter are asked "CHristian or Muslim" before being granted access to the West. You said, "They should stay and fight for their country.", and you meant Black Sudanese Christians and Muslims, then that could be reasonable, but if you meant only Black Muslims, the issue then becomes how do we determine it's approproate to draw the line at that point regarding muslim immigration. It's not as if Black Muslims from Darfur of Noba are any more capable of fighting for themselves then Christians from the South. And it's well established that the concept of the SIalmic *umma* is bulls**t, that's been true for centries now.

And it's not as if those muslims are not cabaple of figuring this out. Look at Amazigh vs Arab N Africans, as pointed out before. The Amazigh immigrants are always much mor elikely to become secret christians, stauch secualrists or at the very least genuine Islamic reformers demanding real respect for human rights in the islamic world. The evidence is overwhelming the Black African muslims from Sudan, Mali or niger have the potential to become just like them. If you're still uneasy about allowing Balck African muslims from Sudan have the same right to seek refuge a Black Chrstian would get, I'd hope you'd at least concur that serious Western invervention, military and otherwise, is needed in the Black Muslim war zone areas of Sudan, both as a basic morla obligation and as a great ptractical move to weaken the camp of islam.

How many years do I have to say this before it sinks in?:

Islam is the Enemy.

"Iran, several Arabian states, and Egypt all have been helped by Pakistan."

Greatcomet:

Hasn't the genie already been released from the bottle? What good does it do to concentrate on Pakistan? An argument could be made that the Middle Eastern states are more likely to use the weapon against the West.
The A.Q. Khan network has done much damage but just going after Pakistan won't make us safer. Iran is a greater threat.
For that matter, just how much aid is being given to those countries by Russia, China and France? They, it seems to me, are doing more damage to our security than even the Khan network.
What do we do with them?

A place to get solace 5 times a day....only for now because of the difficulties in opinion...one has to tread carefully.

Naseems has your nightmare begun to work in the day now.. solace from bowing down to some satanic god with ablack rock in mecca. this is almost laughable. you want sharia, then you say India should take in the pakis who dont want sharia. I say India get your Hindu balls and throw out evey Pak and muslim back to ther land of the pure islam with its great sharia.. you want sharia, now live in it.. yeah it stinks dont it! you can keep it there in tha pak , as what goes on in the pak can stay in the Pak!

maxwell46&2,

Borg is right. We need to stop all migration to the west by individual Muslims.
There may be individual countries where pockets of Muslims are being persecuted. The answer is migration, but to another Muslim country. Aren't all Muslims part of a single Ummah?
The fact is Islam is incompatible with Western mores. People who "assimilate" into Western society are considered not truly Muslim.
After Iraq, no Western country should ever again set one single soldier on Muslim territory to fight for "besieged" Muslims. It does no good. Those Muslims should appeal to their brothers in faith for help.
The day after Western military sets foot in Darfur they will become the occupiers. What about the moral obligation of the people who seek such intervention to support it openly? When are they going to risk their own lives for the sake of freedom for all of their countrymen? Instead, they all flee to the West or denounce mistakes made by Western fighters. You won't accomplish anything by running away, but that's what they do. Not only will they not fight for their own freedom, they have the gall to expect the West to do their fighting for them. No way.

PMK

You whack the mole that is greatest danger for us non-muslims. That is all you can do. Right now that is Iran and Pakistan. Whacking Pakistan will at least slow them down giving it out to everyone under the sun.

"For that matter, just how much aid is being given to those countries by Russia, China and France? They, it seems to me, are doing more damage to our security than even the Khan network.
What do we do with them?"

No disagree there. Yes Russia, China and France etc are no help but they have not given them technology to build a bomb but only the materials (like Nuclear reactors etc.). Just because you have a nuclear reactor does not mean you have the people or needed equipment to build a nuke.

I do agree however something needs to be done wiht said nations however. For China I would threaten to give nukes to Japan and Taiwan. After China throws a fit then they will sit down and we will make a deal. Stop giving nuclear technology to the ummah and we won't give nuke technology to Taiwan.

It would be helpful if we Americans stopped ticking Russia off all the time. Then maybe Russia would stop the tit for tat stuff. The Russians are ticked off becuase we keep meddling in their internal affairs. We keep supporting Kosovo and we have a bunch of Chechens who were granted asylum that Russia wants back becuase they are deemed as terrorist. Russia figures if we won't help them with their Islamic problem then they will do the same to us. It is stupid I know but that is life. Some way we need to sit down with Russia and work out a deal. It is clear they want a deal because all the messages to us have left the door open. We will both pay the price if we keep this nonsense up. We have no idea the danger we are both in.

Simple Facts:

The United States will benefit from this as there are tribes which will want American support from being gobbled up.

Naseem will be one of the first herded up into a prison as his big mouth will not last in a real Islamic dictatorship.

India being pushed will nuke Pakistan, if America is not forced to nuke the hinterlands before these Talistan excentrics take over, and if it is not America then it will be the friendly Chicoms to the north.

The late great Pakistan, born out of a murderous breach from the womb of colonials gone wild and now rots in the afterbirth of Islam.

"Yes Russia, China and France etc are no help but they have not given them technology to build a bomb but only the materials (like Nuclear reactors etc.). Just because you have a nuclear reactor does not mean you have the people or needed equipment to build a nuke."

Greatcomet:

Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Others are giving them the means and we're giving them the know-how. How many of them are studying nuclear physics or engineering in American universities? With France's nuclear power industry, surely a lot of Iranians went to France as well for university training.
We could argue that we are teaching them the basics of nuclear physics, since all countries have a right to nuclear power under the NPT, but getting the bomb would still be a fantasy if they didn't have the machinery (tools) to enrich the uranium, and a whole lot more. They are getting all of that from Russia, China and France. They need the nuclear reactor before they can develop the nukes. Iran says it's its right to develop the means to enrich and reprocess uranium. They've been working on nukes since at least 1988 - almost twenty years, but now they're on the verge of getting the bomb.
It's a slow process, but we are committing suicide.

"It is the duty of all Muslims to support those groups fighting against oppression"

This is so backwards -- Islam is so backwards -- as Islam is the OPPRESSOR! They are moving like an evil, dark plague across this country and the world.

There's a four-letter word I could write that would stop the spread of this cancerous growth (nuke), but I'm not suppose to "go there".

OR....maybe we can just make nice with these people. Right Pelosi?

Anyhow the situation is hotting up here. I think over the next couple of years India is gonna have to take a lot of moderate muslims who no longer want to live in Pak due to sharia...not me ofcourse...I will stay in my Pak.
Posted by: Naseem

As-shaytan-alei-cum, Nazim.

Please explain to me why is India or any other country expected to receive your garbage and leftovers?

Europe is no grbage dump for moslems and neither is India.

In fact there are more than a few Indians who'd like to send the moslems from India to Pak.

Nazim.. NONE wants moslems on their land. They are rude, hodstile, arrogant [for what reason escapes me], violent and unproductive.

India would be a superpower if she'd never met the moslem plague centuries ago. I sincerely hope that India can cast off her moslem shackles soon.

And bin laden is not accountable for what he does with it. If Iran uses the bomb, we know whom to attack. If bin Laden uses the bomb, whom do we attack then? We are back to bombing caves in exchange for one of our cities.

The chance that a bomb will end up exploding on American soil is much greater because of the situation in Pakistan, not the situation in Iran. The Iranian bomb might be detonated on Israel, or not detonated at all. The Pakistani bomb will almost certainly detonate, and it will detonated in NY.
Posted by: jihadwatcher

I disagree. We attack whomever we like. Gloves come off when they nuke an American city.

Islamabad, Lahore.. Karachi.. we will know WHO gave bin Laden the bomb and thus we will know who to hit.

We can also hit the *financiers* of Jihad. Mecca, Medina, Riyadh. In that order. Or all at once.

Let's pray that Giuliani will be our next President. Neither Obama nor Hitlery is what I'd call "credible retaliation".

Witness the recent democrat "outrage" when Rudy finally cleared the air a little. They are disqualifying themselves all on their own.

Losers.

They would be hard pressed to agree that the advance of islam would be served by vaporizing the black rock.

I'm not saying, of course, that this will necessarily be a deterrent, as the jihadists are no-doubt thoroughly convinced that their moon-god will protect the kaaba. But if an when they act upon this faith, islam must be permanently set back.
Posted by: Infidel33

I agree with your pre-guarantee. Unfortunately it may not be alla their moon deity but our leftists, commies, sozis, greens and other assorted freaks holding sway throughout our power establishments who may decide not to retaliate.

Let's make sure such a person never gets into a decision-making position.

You can be sure they'll wait till after 2008 if they wish to nuke anything. At least with Bush y a never know what he might do.

I have no doubt that Obama or Hitlery won't retaliate in case of a nuclear strike. They will obfuscate and say they don't know whom to strike and "what about the innocent civilians"?

What innocent civilians? The ones on the West bank dancing in the streets? The innocents in Mecca handing out candy? The ones in Lahore shouting "death to America?".

Only a tough guy in office will give them at least cause to consider the consequences of their actions.

Neither a Liberal wimp [Hitlery] or a Mandchurian Candidate [Obama] will possess much power of dissuasion.

"do you expect politicians in the West to be saying 'we need to have all immigrants be asked "Are you Muslim" and every migrant who is even identified as a Muslim will then be turned back"? That some posters here would be inclined to react that way is 100% understandable. That said, aside from the ethical implications..."
-- from a poster above

What "ethical implications"? Do you believe that the peoples and governments of the United States, Italy, France, Great Britain,and other countries, inhabited by non-Muslims, the product of long non-Muslim histories, with political and social institutions that are flatly contradicted by the principles of the Shari'a, have some kind of duty to permit Muslims to continue to come and settle deep behind what those Muslims are taught to believe, by Islam itself, as enemy lines?

Are you crazy?

Exactly.

Instead, they all flee to the West or denounce mistakes made by Western fighters.

Meanwhile, Islam gets spared from the same public denouncement for the mistakes IT makes....whether it be the mistakes of allowing extremists to "hijack a great religion" or the mistakes of moderates "being unable to take back their great religion" from the aforementioned "hijackers" a la United 93. Kid-glovers who shield Islam from such criticism claim that "it ain't the religion, stupid!"

Fine.

But to them, we must also declare, ad infinitum, the subsequent, undeniable, but seldom-mentioned shame that logically follows every time Islam is spared from causation for its problems....that Islam sure as hell ain't proving itself to be the "solution-for-all-mankind" it boasts itself to be, either. Especially when the solution many Muslims find is, as previously mentioned, to flee to less-oppressive "infidel-lands" like India and the West. After all, why bother to fix blundering attempts to establish sharia when you can just leave the mess behind for greener, sharia-free pastures in "Kafiristan"? And with the whole world watching, there's no avoiding this sobering public-relations embarassment for the ummah. Shame is a powerful behavior modifier, especially in the Arab/Asian world that's so dominated by Islam. It is time to quit sparing Islam from this great shame.

To Hugh and PMK,

By "ethical implications", the fundamental point was NOT in any way whatsoever that muslims are somehow entitled to emigrate here en mass, and NOT NOW, NOT EVER that they should be even remotely entitled to force us to accomodate them. I realize I made a tactical error not making that crystal clear from the start. I DON'T want to see any CAIR, Muslim student Assocation, "Muslim Human Rights" group or any other Islamic *activists* attempting to migrate here unchecked at all, let alone demanding rights beyond what our Constitution was meant to provide. Nor do I feel the need to accomodate muslim immigrants from places like Somalia, Tehran or Islamabad or West Malaysia, which are in shambles because the muslim inhabitants made conscious decisions to bring about hardline islamic societies without thinking over the consequences. They want to migrate here? Then they better at least accept our entitlement to monitor them more closely then we would any other immigrants. And even if they were to becoem muslim in name only, they'd better accept that we will treat any future children they have as being at significantly higher risk of becoming terrorists then children of non muslim migrants. And yes, I support having them arrested on treason charges and endangering our consitutions the second they push for shariah law.

I was largely speaking from a practical point. My main inquiry to Hugh was, do you expect our politicians to be saying "We need to ask all future immigrants, "Are you a Muslim?" and if they say "yes", no matter if they are devout or muslim in name only, then we simply eject them or more likely even have them jailed on treason charges"? If that's what you're saying, then obviously it's understandable why you'd feel that way, but again, how realistic and practical would it be for our leaders to ever start calling for such measures? Considering what the intent of this site is I suspect if such measures were practical and did not have any moral controversy attached Robert Spencer would have already advocated it a long time ago. In fact, I don't even recall reading prominent Ex Muslim critics, like Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan or Nonie Dariwsh call for these types of measures. Maybe Ali Sina on occasion, but I also think he as admitted in the past that it was his very acceptance as a Muslim into the West that made him question his faith.

And what about refugees like the Black Africans from the Sudan or Chad? Regardless of if they are Christian or Muslim, they weren't responsible for the Islamist hell they're living in and, with the UN and the rest of the world not giving a damn about them one way or the other they have amlost no options for defending themselves. If a Black African from these places, like the famous Lost Boys of Sudan, applies for asylum from the Arab Janjaweed, would it really be appropriate to be asking "Christian or Muslim" when granting them refugee status? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The same concept holds true for Amazigh peoples from North Africa, Kurds from Iran or Iraq, Balochis and ethnic Sindhis from Pakiland, and even Iranian youth born after 1979 who grew up under the Hellishness of the Islamic republic. It means critics of political islam who've been marked for death or long term jailing for their dissent; notable examples covered here and elsewhere include Abdel Kareem, Mohammed Taha (before he was murderd obviously), Nanzanin Fatehi, Amir Fakhravar, Tawfik Hamid, Salah Choudhury and Talisma Nareem. With these peoples, who are from Muslim background by birth and were not responsible for their nations' failiures, there are issues that come up.

What happens if some of them, as would be apostates, for obvious reasons don't feel safe declaring their apostasy or find themselves gravitating towards apostasy until they migrate to Western nations. Not accepting anyone with a muslim background at all would mean no one like Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali who declared their apostasy after they were admitted to the West. Hence, the main issue being does it make more sense to allow them entry because they might become like Wafa Sultan, Ali SIna or Hirsi Ali, or at least demand genuine, unfeigned reform in the Islamic world. Or does it make more sense to deny it to them, even if it means no more future allies like Wafa Sultan or Hirsi Ali, on gorunds they might not leave islam entirely.

The last thing I should say is that naturally granting them entry here is of course not necessarily the first option. The number one choice would be for the West to pull its head out of its a$$ and start helping victims of violent Jihad, whether non muslim or nominally muslim, in places like Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Pakiland. No strategy in curbing jihad will work if we don't take these places more seriously and helping those trapped to free themselves.

A place to get solace 5 times a day....only for now because of the difficulties in opinion...one has to tread carefully.

It is a bit like when Jesus was on earth....Although Christianity's saviour was about...christians had to tread carefully...and loads of them lied to stay alive....same difference.

posted by Naseem

Naseem Alert!

I am beginning to believe in a very positive sense that Naseem is a group and not one person.
Not only does the grammar not match her usual drivel but the slang words are not only used correctly, but spelled correctly. That or her trip to the UK put her in contact with people who can actually use the English language.

Maxwell:

"The number one choice would be for the West to pull its head out of its a$$ and start helping victims of violent Jihad, whether non muslim or nominally muslim, in places like Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Pakiland."

Do you know what the price of oil is? The Muslim world is rich with oil. Let Muslims take care of their own. The US never colonized the Muslim world. We did our best to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat just wasn't interested. Hamas ISN'T interested. The people of the Muslim world made their own bed. Let them lie in it.

"With these peoples, who are from Muslim background by birth and were not responsible for their nations' failiures, there are issues that come up. "

We bought that lie once before. Now look at what is happening in Minneapolis. People who "were not responsible for their nations' failures" are busy trying to establish an Islamic colony in the US. They refuse to obey our laws and insist that we bend to accomodate them. They want the right to discriminate against people who don't follow their belief system.
Nineteen people who "were not responsible" killed a lot of Americans. An "exiled" Sheikh preached a brand of Islam that advocated attempts to kill over thirty thousand people (probably the minimum death toll if the first WTC attack had gone off as planned).

You may not like it, but I am proposing that no MUSLIM be allowed to enter the US. Black African Christians are clearly in danger from Muslim violence and there is a greater morality in giving them refuge in the US. The Muslims are disqualified.
According to Brigitte Gabriel:
"The Center for Religious Freedom went undercover last year and collected 200 publications from some of the most prominent mosques in the United States. Those books, provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to American mosques, teach Muslims living in an infidel land how to deal with infidels. These Saudi publications repeatedly exalt Muslims to, and I quote, hate them for their religion – meaning Christians, Jews, atheists and everybody in between. ... They say that democracy, justice, freedom, brotherhood and equality cause all of the world's problems. This is being taught in the mosques. And it gets worse. They say it is the RELIGIOUS DUTY OF EVERY MUSLIM TO IMPOSE FUNCTIONALLY ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT ON EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. This religious duty is binding ... and a sacred obligation of jihad."

Muslims who accomodate themselves to life in Western societies are not truly Muslim, since they are not following the dictate to bring Islamic government to the area they inhabit.

When it comes down to it, Islam is incompatible with Western democracy and pluralism. They cannot coexist.

"Not accepting anyone with a muslim background at all would mean no one like Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali who declared their apostasy after they were admitted to the West."

Here is where omniscience comes in. I don't have it. I don't know anyone who can tell if the next Ayan Hirsi Ali will be a genuine reformer or a plant. In the future the Ayan Hirsi Alis of the Muslim world will have to fight for reform within the Muslim world. Running to the West will save THEM but it won't save Islam. If they are afraid to risk their own lives for their beliefs then their beliefs aren't worth a whole lot are they?

Where is Patrick Henry when you need him?

maxwell46&2 said

What happens if some of them, as would be apostates, for obvious reasons don't feel safe declaring their apostasy or find themselves gravitating towards apostasy until they migrate to Western nations.

If you can devise or construct a device that would allow us to tell the apostate from the imposter, or the "moderate" Muslim who doesn't currently follow all of Allah's mandates in the Qur'an from the "moderate" Muslim who someday will decide to start following the entire Qur'an very strictly, then we could try to refine the entry standard. But I think you will find that to be an insurmountable task.

Not accepting anyone with a muslim background at all would mean no one like Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali who declared their apostasy after they were admitted to the West.

You apparently see the U.S. as the solver of all problems everywhere in the world. It is somehow our responsibility to protect every person, wherever they may be. What would be the downside of having apostates (or "moderate" Muslims, whatever that means) standing and fighting the menace of Islam in their own countries? Why should their countrymen be deprived of their anti-jihad influence? If they all flee to our country, then the only ones left in their country will be the "radicals".

And, honestly, of the Muslims who come to our country, how many are in the category of an Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali? Are they 1 in 10000, 1 in 100000, 1 in 1000000? You're only concerned about the 1, I'm more concerned about the 10000 or 100000 or 1000000.

auntbea --

You would be correct, as Naseem suffers from MPD: Multiple Personality Disorder -- or -- Muslim Political Delusions, depending on how you look at it.

Assalamau Laikum Allahfanculo,

You say "Islamabad, Lahore.. Karachi.. we will know WHO gave bin Laden the bomb and thus we will know who to hit".

Listen....and listen good...Lahore is miles away from Afghan border...likely where bin-laden is....please leave Lahore alone...this is where I live, I still have much dawa to give ...please remember this!

Hugh is right about Ziauddin Sardar. In his writings he advocates the application of sharia law throughout the umma - he seems to have picked up the idea that the state should wither away from new left associates in his youth. The difference between him and the average shariad is that he wants the gates of itijad re-opened and sharia updated. It is all somewhat half-baked: does he envisage a legislative assembly of mujtahids? aren't the koran and sunna so precise and prescriptive that there is little room for modernisation? - he doesn't seem to deal with these matters.
His autobiography, full of reflections on cultural history, revealed the extent to which Muslim thinkers distort the past at every point to magnify the importance and beneficial effects of Islam and to belittle the achievements of other cultures. He mentions the word Christian only once - in the phrase 'Christian gas-chambers', an idea he likes so much it turns up in another piece of his (over-voluminous) writings in a different context.
One of the most insane articles I have ever read in a British serious newspaper was one he wrote, supporting faith schools, where Christian children could learn Muslim habits of hard work: he then went on the make fun of the British dislike of first cousin marriages (this from someone who started his career professing to be something of an expert on science.)

PMK

Yes Russia, France and China have been no help. I agree! However we have been no help to ourselves either. How much military technology (even nuclear) have we given to Saudia Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Come on we do it too! Until we clean up our own house forget others to clean up theirs. I have stated that we can reach out to Russia and get them to change their behavior. China can be influenced by doing the same thing they do to us. Threaten to give nuclear technology to Taiwan and see how fast China changes their tune. Two can play the same game.

To PMK,

I'd have to say there are still some parts of my comments you misunderstand.

"We did our best to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat just wasn't interested. Hamas ISN'T interested"

And here, I say, F**k them all, these islamis t sociopaths who tricked the world into thinking al lthey want is a homeland. When I talked about helping people within the islamic world, I WAS NOT, repeat, WAS NOT talking about murderous pricks like these.

"We bought that lie once before. Now look at what is happening in Minneapolis. People who "were not responsible for their nations' failures" are busy trying to establish an Islamic colony in the US. They refuse to obey our laws and insist that we bend to accomodate them. They want the right to discriminate against people who don't follow their belief system."

"According to Brigitte Gabriel:
"The Center for Religious Freedom went undercover last year and collected 200 publications from some of the most prominent mosques in the United States. Those books, provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to American mosques, teach Muslims living in an infidel land how to deal with infidels. These Saudi publications repeatedly exalt Muslims to, and I quote, hate them for their religion – meaning Christians, Jews, atheists and everybody in between. ... They say that democracy, justice, freedom, brotherhood and equality cause all of the world's problems. This is being taught in the mosques. And it gets worse. They say it is the RELIGIOUS DUTY OF EVERY MUSLIM TO IMPOSE FUNCTIONALLY ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT ON EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. This religious duty is binding ... and a sacred obligation of jihad."

WELL NO KIDDING. That's why I've said several times that of course our methods for dealing with violent jihad should first and foremost include outlawing Al Jazeerah and all Saudi/Qatar/Egypt/UAE funded mosques and madrassas, not just in the west but every non-muslim nation. Hell, that's what muslim nations would be doing if they really wanted to prove to us they we serious in fighting violent jihad. This is the closest thhing we have to a method that at least partially separates jihadist from non jihadist muslims: ban all these institutions and then crack down on all muslims here who protest either publicly or privately.

Again, these are the kinds of people, from countries like Somalia, who I cite as islamic peoples who DID bring their hardships upon themselves. Hence, I specifically stated that peoples like these should NOT be looked at with the same sympathy as Black Africnas from Sudan, Iranian youth or ethnic minorities in countries like Algeria and Pakiland.

"You may not like it, but I am proposing that no MUSLIM be allowed to enter the US. Black African Christians are clearly in danger from Muslim violence and there is a greater morality in giving them refuge in the US. The Muslims are disqualified"

I'm not saying I necessarily like it or don't like it. I'm saying, if you have, for instance, a Black African from the Sudan, like the famous Lost Boys and Francis Bok, seeking protection from the Arab Janjaweed, would it be plausible to simply use the religous background, i.e. CHristian or Muslim, of the migrant to determine entry rights? If so, how would it be enacted? How would we be able to pass it as acceptable legistation? And how would we be able to keep our right to take muslim nations to task, as we routinely do on Dhimmi Watch, while taking the same types of measures against any one of the 1.2 billion people identified, for various different reasons, as a "muslim". To reemphasize, I don't want a mass movement of islamics to the west, who coerce us to accomodate them when it should be the other way around, anymore than you do. And I think our problems with mass immigration in general are getting severe and do need to be dealt iwht seriously. But these issues are essential logical ones to ponder if, and yes, possibly when we get to the point where we are asking "muslim or non muslim" as a means to detemermine who can live in Western nations.

"Here is where omniscience comes in. I don't have it. I don't know anyone who can tell if the next Ayan Hirsi Ali will be a genuine reformer or a plant. In the future the Ayan Hirsi Alis of the Muslim world will have to fight for reform within the Muslim world. Running to the West will save THEM but it won't save Islam. If they are afraid to risk their own lives for their beliefs then their beliefs aren't worth a whole lot are they?"

This may well be true. But does that mean it's necessarily better to just let future Hirsi Alis, Ali Sinas, Tawfik Hamids, Amer Kareems, Afshin Ellains, Shariar Kabirs, Tashbih Sayyeds, Nonie Darwishes and Ibn Warraqs get murdered in the Islamic world than have them as allies here in the West? These aforemetnioned peoples almost all have a 0% chance of survival in much of the islamic world.

"Running to the West will save THEM but it won't save Islam. If they are afraid to risk their own lives for their beliefs then their beliefs aren't worth a whole lot are they?"

That, I will grant you, has a certian degree of truth to it. And simply searching the JW archives will reveal the large numbers of dissenters who are more than willing to risk their lives, and have done so many times across Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, the Sudan, Bangladesh and elsewhere. And all the activists I mentioned earlier are risking their lives even in the West, Ali SIna, Tawfik Hamid, Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, all of them. Hell, Irshad Manji currently travels with several bodyguards and lives in bullet proof windows. Hence, I am still as opposed to mass, unrestricted immigration from the Islamic world as much as the next Westerner who doesn't want to pay a jizyah.

What I mean by "The number one choice would be for the West to pull its head out of its a$$ and start helping victims of violent Jihad, whether non muslim or nominally muslim, in places like Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Pakiland." is largely what should be straightofrward logic. It means stop looking nations like Egypt and Pakiland as allies, and abruptly end all military and monetary aid which will just be used on ethnic/religous minorities and dissenters. This has been reitierated many times here, no? It means aggresive intervention in places like Sudan, in the Christian South and Black Muslim areas, and Balochistan in Pakiland. It means harsh punishments for countries like Iran or Algeria that block progressive, pro-democratic movements among ethnic and religous/ideoligical minorities. And it means doing more to encourage the non Arabs' resentment of Islamist Arabists in Sudan, Iran, Algeria, Bangladesh and Pakiland. And this of course has also been reiterated many times here.

Oy, Naseem....you're still up? Assuming you're truly in Pakistan, isn't it around 2 am there now?

To Special Guest,

"You apparently see the U.S. as the solver of all problems everywhere in the world. It is somehow our responsibility to protect every person, wherever they may be. What would be the downside of having apostates (or "moderate" Muslims, whatever that means) standing and fighting the menace of Islam in their own countries? Why should their countrymen be deprived of their anti-jihad influence? If they all flee to our country, then the only ones left in their country will be the "radicals".

The downside, well of course there is none. Just like there would be none in letting Chinese or Vietmanese or Ukranaions during the communist era fight for their freedoms within their own countries. Does that mean it was a bad thing to allow them in the West since some of them might have been secretly commie infiltrators? And yes, I know that mass immigration of muslims does as a rule of thumb pose a threat those form commie nations don't pose. But saying dissidents from Islamic nations need to declare apostasy to immigrate is not necessarily an effective antidote either. ANd I don't think there will be noone left in their own countries but "radicals" if we let apostate/secularist/"moderate"(secular or nominal)muslim activists gain entry. You could likely look for yourself even in the JW archives and the websites it links to about large numbers of muslims and apostates in Islamic nations fighting the Islamist menace, getting masasacred and jailed while doing it.

Part of what we in the West need to do to help genuine dissidents within islamic nations involves simply to stop being such a p**sy when it comes to treatment of islamic nations that murder democratic activists. Start PUNISHING them, for f**k's sake, deny their govt's all humanitarian and developmental aid, intervene to take problem areas i.e. Darfur/Southern Sudan away from them, sanction the hell out of them and openly decrale all of them to be enemies of Western civilizations.

"And, honestly, of the Muslims who come to our country, how many are in the category of an Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali? Are they 1 in 10000, 1 in 100000, 1 in 1000000? You're only concerned about the 1, I'm more concerned about the 10000 or 100000 or 1000000."

I'm concerned about ALL of them, believe me. I'm concerned about hte ones that will become like ALi Sina, Hirsi ALi, Tawfik Hamid, Tashbih Sayyed, Shahriar Kabir, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Salah Choudhury, Mohammed Taha, Abdel Kareem, members of "Mouvement des Maghrébins Laïques" in France, and of course Ibn Warraq. I'm equally concerned about the ones who don't; should they all here to spread Islam and coerce us to accomodate their Islamic ways then yes, I don't EVER want to see them here. It's about using logic when looking at people from Islamic nations, not at all about beiong an apologist for muslims.

maxwell46&2,

After reading your latest posts, I think we're pretty much on the same page, with but a few slight differences:

"It means stop looking nations like Egypt and Pakiland as allies, and abruptly end all military and monetary aid which will just be used on ethnic/religous minorities and dissenters."

These alliances are remnants of the Cold War. It's hard to end aid to Egypt, however, without abrogating the Camp David Accords. Egypt gets a lot of its military aid based on that peace treaty with Israel. Can we just cut them off? I'm not sure.
However this same logic should also apply to Saudi Arabia. They're not our allies and they never were. They're another Cold War remnant. All the "religious" states in the Middle East allied with the US during the Cold War. The Arab nationalists (Egypt and Iraq among them) were Soviet allies.

Regarding letting dissidents flee to the West: we don't know who they are. We can't be sure if they've just run afoul of the leadership in their country or if they're really apostates. Irshad Manji is not an apostate. She firmly believes in Islam. She just wants to better the position of women within Islam and that has put her in opposition to current Muslim hierarchy. It doesn't mean she doesn't believe in jihad and the universal ummah.

You keep bringing up Sudan. There are two parts of Sudan that are fighting the central government. The southerners are Christians but the Darfuris are African Muslims. After Iraq, no American soldier should set foot near Darfur. We can offer help to the African Union or whatever political body wants to break up Sudan and give them independence. The Muslim community has to face facts, however. If we are to be viewed as occupiers then we can never help them. It's their own fault. It's their religion that proscribes working with non-Muslims. There has been no indication that the Darfuris are not practicing Muslims and that they wouldn't turn on American forces just as the Iraqis did. Our message to everyone who condemned our action in Iraq and now condemns our INACTION in Darfur should be: If you want it done, do it yourself. Americans are not your whipping boys and we're not your cash cows.

As for punishing countries like Iran or Algeria and encouraging non-Arabs in these countries, that is called "interference in internal affairs", not just by our enemies, but by our so-called allies. We have had virtually no contact with Iran since its revolution, but the rest of the world has. They won't isolate Iran. They won't isolate Sudan. They won't isolate Saudi Arabia. Why? Because there's money to be made in all of these places. The US can't do it alone. Until the rest of the world sees the same threat we do, then we're all alone. So we just have to do what we can to protect ourselves. THAT is the sovereign right of all nations. We have a right to control our borders. People born in other nations do not have a sovereign right to enter the US. We should not apologize for having standards.

Greatcomet:

Agreed. Let's add India to that list.

I would love to see an independent Taiwan remain so, but the rest of the world won't stand for it. If we threaten to give them nuclear technology then that puts us in violation of the NPT. We are the only country prohibited from violating it. The rest of the world can do so with impunity.

maxwell46&2 -

I saw your comment on another thread linking to this one. FYI - rather than linking to a whole thread (which people then have to scroll through to find your comment) you can link directly to your comment by right-clicking on the red-underlined date and time at the bottom of your post, then selecting "copy link location" and pasting it into the current thread.

I do appreciate your attempt to struggle with the very specific questions you are raising, as eventually those are the very questions we are going to have to ask ourselves and ultimately answer in a practical and moral sense if we are serious about controlling Muslim immigration to the west.

As to granting refugee status to infidel victims of jihad anywhere in the world - that shouldn't be an issue. We should take them in.

As to the question of taking in Muslims - look at the list of genuine reformers you have compiled. How many can you actually name? A dozen? Can you come up with a list of even 200? Even 1,000? So we are clearly talking about a pretty small number relative to the millions who have migrated here. However, we don't know the number of people who apostasize upon coming here so the combined number of genuine reformers and apostates is pretty much unknown but any regular reader here would appreciate that the number is probably pretty darned small.

If we would want to bring in these apostates and genuine Muslim reformers (something I agree with) one way to go about it would be to set up networks that would loudly publicize these folks in their own countries, in order to prove their "bona fides" as it were, before bringing them here. For example, we all heard about the case of Abdul Rahman and he managed to escape to Italy IIRC. Would it be possible for us to network with Christian, Muslim apostate and other dissident groups in Muslim-dominant countries to identify these people and get them to the west? An international underground railroad of sorts?

The point being, that I think they need to come with some "recommendation" as to their authenticity - either objectively through their public writings in their home lands or on the say-so of respected and trusted insiders withing those countries. They need to come with some proven bona fides and not leave it up to some beaurocratic immigration process to assess their bona fides as they will obviously lie through their teeth once they get the game.

Beyond that - as to the larger masses, I think several posters above have stated a perfectly reasonable alternative, which is for Muslims to emigrate to other Muslims lands and if those Muslim countries won't take them in then we should shame them publically in article after article for their hypocrisy of "brotherhood" in the umma. God knows why this wasn't done a long time ago with regard to the Muslim ummah's failure to take in all those Palestinian refugees, when the tiny state of israel managed to take in millions of their own.

Finally, something that I don't see mentioned above besides emigration of groups under siege to other islamic countries is the option of arming those fighting the jihadists, perhaps accompanied by a small but but very elite western fighting force. Has the west bothered to arm the Sudanese fighting the jihad, for example? (I suppose that leaves the problem of weapons falling into the wrong hands when the conflict is over but is there a way to take back many of those arms after the mission is accomplished? I admit my ignorance about military affairs in this respect).

To Caroline,

One, yes, it owuld be a great idea to have an "underground raliroad" of sorts, for apostates and freethinkers in the islamic world to find refuge in the west. That would mean no mor eobscene occurances among such peoples, as was the case with Abdul Rahman (Afghanistan), Abdel Kareem (Egypt), Mohammed Taha (Sudan-murdered), Salah Coudhury (Bangladesh), and Nanzanin Fatehi(Iran), top name a few among may specfic examples I was taking about conceptually in my earlier posts.

Also, I don't see either why we can't assist, at the very least diplomatically if not militarily as well, peoples fighting jihadists. That would include Sudanese, both in the South and in Darfur and in Noba, the Biafrans in Nigeria, Catholics in the Moluccas and Sulawesi (Indonesia), the Hindus and CHinese in Malaysia, the Baloch and Hindu/secularist Sindhis in Pakiland, Ethiopians and Ivorian Christians, Lebanese Maronites and pretty much all the ethnic minorities in Iran. This is what I was talking about before with complementing immigration control to stop spreading jihad. All these aforementioned groups need to be assured that if and when they stand up an take on the jihadists head on, the Western world has their back so to speak.

And most of all, we need to find ways to interconnect with other Americans and Westerners who've just HAD IT with us being p*ssies in dealing with so-called Islamic allies. We all need to find out how to get together and demand from our gov'ts why they're so damned soft with muslim nations. Demand to know why Egypt hasn't been taken to task for its treatment of Abdel Kareem and other activist bloggers. Why haven't we punished Pakiland (just for the record I call it "Pakiland" because it sounds humorous and appropriately insulting for a nation I have zero respect for), for its treatment of minorities, both religous (Hindu, Christian) and racial (Baloch, Sindhis, Kashmiris in Northern Areas)? And are harsh words REALLY the best we can do regarding Iran for its heinous track record with minorites, apostates of islam and democratic activists? Perhaps this is among the most useful purposes of Jihadwatch, linking together citizens beyond sick of our leaders' attitudes on these issues and get them organized. And this is perhaps the best method we have for reducing the need for migrants to find haven in the west in the first place.

"And most of all, we need to find ways to interconnect with other Americans and Westerners who've just HAD IT with us being p*ssies in dealing with so-called Islamic allies. We all need to find out how to get together and demand from our gov'ts why they're so damned soft with muslim nations. Demand to know why Egypt hasn't been taken to task for its treatment of Abdel Kareem and other activist bloggers. Why haven't we punished Pakiland (just for the record I call it "Pakiland" because it sounds humorous and appropriately insulting for a nation I have zero respect for), for its treatment of minorities, both religous (Hindu, Christian) and racial (Baloch, Sindhis, Kashmiris in Northern Areas)? And are harsh words REALLY the best we can do regarding Iran for its heinous track record with minorites, apostates of islam and democratic activists? Perhaps this is among the most useful purposes of Jihadwatch, linking together citizens beyond sick of our leaders' attitudes on these issues and get them organized. And this is perhaps the best method we have for reducing the need for migrants to find haven in the west in the first place."

Final adenum here: I was putting Iran in this list as a random addition. No, I did not actually think Iran was an **ally** since 1979.

maxwell46&2: "We all need to find out how to get together and demand from our gov'ts why they're so damned soft with muslim nations."

Well I reckon that is the million dollar question! Apparently they don't understand the threat because they don't understand Islam. Why that should be the case is a great mystery as this site comes up second after wiki on a google search of the word "jihad". But the bottom line is that there's not going to be the strength in numbers in order to "demand from our governments" what you want, until there is sufficient widespread understanding about Islam among the populace who can demand such changes. Which is really what this site is all about. Once people grasp the threat, my general impression is that they REALLY grasp the threat! It sort of hits one over the head like a ton of bricks. That was my own experience in any case. I guess the best we can do in the meantime is keep spreading the word. Have you ever seen that film "Pay it Forward", starring the kid from the 6th sense, Haley Joel Osmet? Truly, a really corny movie but the message is sound. Convince 3 people and get them to convince 3 people and so on. Of course, it really helps when one of those 3 people just happens to be a journalist or talk-show host with access to the media or public airwaves, because that multiplies the message one hundred fold!

I disagree. We attack whomever we like. Gloves come off when they nuke an American city.

But we won't. Thus my rhetorical question: When Bin Laden nukes NYC, whom do we then bomb? Our staunch ally Pakistan? Our oil supplier Saudi Arabia? Not likely. The geopolitical realities seem to preclude such actions.

Will the gloves ever come off? My fear is that they won't. My fear is that there is nothing the islamic world can do to the west that will fundamentally alter our perception of them as misguided clowns in sandals and robes with a few bad apples thrown in the lot.

They only reason why we killed the Germans and the Japanese on an industrial scale is that they had the military power to rival our own. That put fear into us at the highest levels, and thus the gloves came off. The muslim world, on the othern hand, lacks such power, always will, and thus the ruling elites will never justify bombing Pakistan proper, much less our oil depot, Saudi Arabia, even less the muslim world in general. It is not going to happen.

So I fear that a bin laden can nuke a major city, and with the possible consequence of more bombs falling on more caves, I don't see much that the US will do in retaliation. Iran, as a state, would be a legitimate target, at least its industrial and military sites, but even then, not its population centers. But for a terrorist to use a bomb, means that it will go essentially unpunished in the islamic world.

What will be the doom of the west is the gargantuan power imbalance in our favor, and our sense of sportsmanship, which appears to inhibit our leaders from actually treating the islamic world as a real authentic threat to national security, and therefore allows our enemies to nickel and dime us into submission. Iraq is a good example. We could win the war tomorrow, through nothing more than WW II-style annihilation measures, but we choose not to. We seem to be above that.

maxwell- You want the west to provide funds for all those conflicts? When most western countries are floating in debt?

And to stick it's nose into all those regions? We are already critized by every other country in the world for doing just that, even with good intentions, it just gets us blamed for everything. Why would this be different?

The 'west' will never have the backs of those fighting the jihadists. Why? Because the west is made up of democratic countries and when they have elections, policies change, but the jihadis never stop, ever. How can a war ever end when the leader is dead but the war ideology isn't?

Those same people fighting the jihadists will turn on the west as soon as things don't go well. They need to fight for themselves.

Look at all the news reports about how the big bad U.S. supplied arms to various countries and that makes it evil. Does it ever get credit? No.

You sound like one of those Not-In-My-Name people. They are talking just like those who wanted us to step into Iraq a few years ago. Minus the WMD story. I remember when that guy was begging for intervention in Iraq. He and his people would be grateful for being liberated. Remember him? You just don't realize it's the same story just a different place.

You are just adding the color into the mix. I don't care if they are charcoal black or lilly white muslims. I don't want Jihad Jack in Australia. Or John Walker Lind in California. Or Adam the jewish convert, either. Or MalcombX who wrote the book that Adam was inspired by. And that goes for sports heros like Muhammad Ali, who had the nerve to say Islam is peace, even though he took his muslim name from a warrior who murdered to get his way. Bullcrap.

The only war that could ever be won with muslim jihadists would end in TOTAL expulsion of all muslims from the country being fought in. Are you willing to see that? I'm guessing no.

Anything else would just be a hudna.

A truce that seems like a win.

---- Any muslim that has a child has given birth to YOUR FUTURE JIHADIST. Even if that person was a moderate or secular or whatever word you use to describe someone who is not currently a jihadist.
----

There is NO REFORM possible. Unless the muslims war with themselves. Unlikely.

Let them go to a country like Turkey if they are moderate. They can work on reform there. Become the new Attaturk and take it away from Erdogan. Start a new REFORMED ISLAM in Turkey.

But they would have to reprint the book, wouldn't they?

Would they change the word of GOD? Even though God didn't speak to Mohammad, an angel did according to what I have read. It's the words of Gabriel, an angel. Of course Satan was an angel, too, wasn't he?

No, they brag about the book never having one word changed from day one. Even though the book was written way, way, way after Mohammad's death.

Can it be re-written and still be islam?

Unlikely.

It will never happen.

jihadwatcher

EXACTLY.

jihadwatcher: "So I fear that a bin laden can nuke a major city, and with the possible consequence of more bombs falling on more caves, I don't see much that the US will do in retaliation."

I'm not so sure about that. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 and in response invaded 2 countries. We've learned quite a bit since then about islam (I haven't seen a single comment thread on any website that didn't evidence at least ONE poster who "got Islam"). Compare the average westerner's knowledge about islam NOW compared to his/her knowledge about islam when we went into Afghanistan and iraq. I am of the mind that those 2 battles in this "long war" were thoroughly worth the price. Think about it. If it weren't for the war in Iraq and how it awakened the ummah in the west to show their true colors, would any of us actually know more about islam then we did prior to 9/11? Is a death toll of 3,000 soldiers over 4 years (equivalent to the number killed on 9/11)worth the price of that knowledge? Was anyone aware of the demographic jihad in Europe prior to the war in Iraq? Maybe sometimes things have to take their natural course. And maybe sometimes what appears to be a disaster could turn out to be a real blessing in disgiuse. With all that said - put together the picture of what we did in response to 9/11 (invade 2 countries) together with the much larger awareness about islam in the west today as a consequence, and tell me that if a major American city were actually nuked! by Muslims tomorrow (note that nuking a city would also cause a major humanitarian crisis of citizens fleeing that city and needing to relocate to the nearest metropolitan centers, thereby spreading the crisis, not to mention the impact on financial markets etc) - we wouldn't do something pretty radical? Putting things in perspective overall, I think we would do something radical. Although I guess it depends on who we have sitting in the White House at the time. I'm not a fan of McCain with his open borders advocacy and his beating the chest guilt over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib (although its easy to see where that is coming from personally) - but when he did his recent "Bomb bomb Iran" number, combined with his refusal to apologize about it (Apologize to who? The Iranians? he asked incredulously) - that's what I want to see. If that sort of attitude is in the white house when an actual nuclear attack happens on an American city, I wouldn't underestimate the likely response.

We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 and in response invaded 2 countries.

We invaded one country that was a no-man's wasteland, and the other was to seach for WMD, not to subdue or subjugate, much less to wreck vengeance. And in both cases, the bad guys are still running around as a result.

In the same time span, the US single-handedly defeated Imperial Japan, and helped to defeat Nazi Germany. Yet, here we are, in 2007, and seemingly incapable of defeating a bunch of arabs whose weapons are nothing more than rifles and the odd car bomb. Does that not strike one as odd?

If anyone here is contemplating going to be sometime, it may help to know that the Pakis have limited missile capability. Not even enough to reach the far side of India.

If we can't influence or eliminate Islam
If we can't eliminate Muslims
If we can't achieve honest dialogue with them
and we accept "moderate Muslim" to be a fallacy

...then containment is the only option, including sending all Muslims who exhibit the slightest tinge of Islamic belligerence back to their countries of origin. The open question then is:

When do we reach that threshhold?

If they keep parading around those shouting, burqa-clad women, armed with sticks; tourism is going to go straight in the dumper!

Jihadwatcher:

Who do we nuke after NYC takes a nuclear hit by al-Qaeda?

I have a shortlist of twelve nation-states that it would be beneficial to nuke after the next mega-terror attack on the US (which we ALL know is coming).

In no particular order they are: Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Malaysia, and Venezuela. Cuba is getting off only because Castro is about to bite the dust and the Cubans may try to distance themselves from the vile legacy left behind by Castro (but we'll see). France escapes because the French people do not usually support their government's policies.

I excluded Chechnya and Palestine for the reason that they are parts of other states. Lebanon alas is so far gone thanks ot the world of Hizbollah, Iran and Syria that we are going to have to just let it go (as it is now a full-fledged menace to world peace).

Add your own to this list. I am sure the State Department is carefully monitoring events in all of the 12 aformentioned nations. I am sure that the western democracies will sooner or later have to deal with all of them one way or another (and harshly).