Motoon Rage Update: Denmark evacuates embassies in Algeria, Afghanistan

Ah...Islam is such the religion of peace, isn't it?

The warning specifically singled out North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
.................................

Isn't this pretty much most of the Muslim world, except for the traditionally somewhat more moderate populations of Indonesia, Malaysia and India?

And Afghanistan, which is still considered a "success" in some quarters, despite their increasing re-Talibanization, including the persecution of apostates.

Now a delegation from a peaceful nation is forced into hiding for their own safety. I hope they pull their diplomats out of the region entirely rather than compromise on freedom of speech. Diplomacy in the region tends to work against infidels as it is.

Embassy employees have been moved to secret locations in both countries' capitals but continue to work, Foreign Ministry spokesman Erik Laursen said.

If the host government cannot guarantee the security of the embassy it should be shut down and its people evacuated until such time as there is a functioning government.
Maybe if all Western governments took a similar action in Islamic countries it might get their attention. Muslim governments can't coddle the lunatics and still pretend to be on the side of law and order. We've been letting them have it both ways long enough.

What's worse than Pigman to the enemy?

Most scholars would agree that the oldest, truest international law most recognized as such is that you should not kill the diplomat. Muslims repudiate ancient international laws making civilization impossible for the rest of us.

Islamic Diplomacy at work. What's next, taking offence to Church Steeples or something? Ooops, I shouldn't have mentionned that should I?

"Most scholars would agree that the oldest, truest international law most recognized as such is that you should not kill the diplomat. Muslims repudiate ancient international laws making civilization impossible for the rest of us."
-- from a posting above

I'd hesitate to assume that "international law" --presumably some kind of customary law or jus gentium -- of some "oldest" and "truest" kind exists. But the special legal regime for diplomats, including diplomatic immunity (which can and is often abused) which Western governments and peoples have assumed rests on universally-accepted principles, clearly does not.

The seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran was the most celebrated example of androlepsy, and those seized were diplomats. The PLO took special pride in its letter-bomb attacks on Israeli diplomats (one such attack on an Israeli diplomat in London marked, or even set off, the entry of Israeli troops into Lebanon by an Israeli government at the end of its tether).

Muslims do not so much "repudiate" laws or customs made by others as never to have accepted them in the first place.

More important than the treatment, or mistreatment, of diplomatic personnel and sites is the complete failure of Muslim states to believe they have a duty to honor treaties made with Infidels. They do not. The principlethat "treaties are to be obeyed" (Pacta Sunt Servanda), was not -- as some may comfortably assume -- regarded as self-evident but had to be argued for and accepted, and in the Western world it was. But "Pacta Sunt Servanda" is not a principle in Islamic jurisprudence. The only principle that explains Muslim treaties with Infidels is not a Roman phrase, but the behavior of Muhammad, the example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, when he made his agreeement with the Meccans in 628 A.D. at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca. It was for a "truce" of roughly ten years, and Muhammad proceeded to break that truce within 18 months. And he has been hailed for his cunning, his ability to fool the Meccans, while he built up his own forces and then attacked when the time was ripe.

The failure of Western governments to consider that "Pacta Sunt Servanda" (one wonders if Rice even knows the phrase, and somehow one doubts that Grotius, Vitoria, Suerez, all the way to De Visscher and Lauterpacht, mean much to her, for she that new and perfectly acceptable phenomenon, the Total Ignoramus in Charge) is not universal; the bland assumption that it is -- that is at the heart of the mistaken attention given to the "Peace Process" and all that to-and-froing by assorted indyks and haasses and millers and rosses, not one of whom, I am certain, has until they read this note (and I hope they do) will ever have heard either of "Pacta Sunt Servanda" or, for that matter, have realized that the corresponding principle of Muslim treaty-making is very different indeed.

The dopes are in charge. That's not the only problem. But it's a large part of it.

Off topic but I thought this was good:

Barak "Barry" Obama announced today he is actually Irish. His last name has been misspelled for the last 22 years.
His last name is in fact, according to spokeswoman I'ma-ji Hadi, O'Bama.
"We aplogise for any consusion. The presidential election will now be an all-Irish affair, McCain v. O'Bama"

Reported by the A.P. last night following Pennsylvania results.

Montjoie,
Godfrey

I saw that, too, Godfrey. I also heard his middle name is actually not "Hussein" but "Killarney." Typo, they said.

I saw that, too, Godfrey. I also heard his middle name is actually not "Hussein" but "Killarney." Typo, they said.

Jesus Was Son of Mary, Rapist

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352277,00.html

BLASPHEMY!!!!!

BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSPIRE THOUGHT

Update on latest poll results from Pakistan on how many favor killing the Danish cartoonists:

http://www.jamatdawah.org/poll_results.php?poll_id=12

Newspapers said they reprinted the cartoon in support of free speech after police revealed a plot to kill the creator of the caricature. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
-(from article)

Indeed, Mohammed with a bomb in his turban has been idolized by thousands of Muslims across the world as they spew murder and death advancing their religion.

The Koran is an object of such reverence, that even those who can't read it, which is a goodly number of the faithful sons of Allah, make it into a talisman, which is an idol. They are bereft of art, of thought, of anything that makes a short existence bearable. Their idol is nothingness, it is nihilism.

Eastview, that poll is a good indicator of how many radical Muslims there are: 50%, a very high and alarming number.

I assert again that those who are deeply sceptical of the entire Islamic faith, as I am, paradoxically have Islam itself as their best ally in proving to the entire world the intolerance and violence-prone nature of Mohammed's creed. This Danish embassy story is yet another example.

10 years ago I would not have dreamed of my current position on Islam. I was referred to as a leftie by many of my friends who held more restrictive views on multiculturalism.

I was like many liberal thinkers, flawed in my view that people everywhere are the same and that they want the same things as us.

Many of the issues we currently face are due to very weak leadership and middle ground thinking from the political classes. Trying to generate the largest votes does not necessarily generate the best political leadership. They are luke warm on everything. No balls. No leadership. Just surveys and media spin.

Islam is the biggest threat we face to our culture, way of life, liberties and daughters.

We are at war and the Political Correct Police in the media stop anyone debating the issues for fear of being considered intollerant.

Jihad Watch is a fantastic resource and when the battle commences. You will be noted amoung the few brave people who stuck their head up and claimed the right for people to defend themselves, putting the facts out their.

I am no racist. My problems are not about the colour of your skin or the shape of your eyes. My problem is in how these people wish to organise society and their backward views on culturally acceptable behaviour.

I have become intollerant of Multiculturism and this has had me labeled a right wing biggot.

I am intollerant of girls not being allowed to drive in Sudia Arabia.

I am intollerant of girls being forced into marriage when they are children.

I am intollerant of gays being killed in Iran.

I am intollerant of appostates being killed all over the middle east and africa.

I am intollerant of of government making allowances for freedom of religion when it goes against all our in built moral ideals and freedoms.

I am intollerant of the Islamic community practising double standards regarding terrorism and the Jihad. (Who pays for the Jihad? the Community)

I am most of all intollerant of the news media dressing up the threat to the civilised countries of the world being the acts of a small maniority of extremist islamists when they are following Islam correctly and supported by the whole community.

I am intollerant of all of the above and if this makes me politically incorrect I do not care.

MUST READ

My interview of "Eurabia" author Bat Ye'or.

"WE ARE LIVING THE 1930s"

This interview was made on April 21, 2008 in French, but a Google English translation is pretty good :

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?doit=done&url=http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-18925764.html&lp=fr_en

The Danish government should announce that any attack on one of its embassies would mean: the severing of dilomatic relations with the country where the attack took place; the deportation from Denmark of all of that nation's nationals resident in Denmark; and the seizure of the assets of that nation and its nationals.
AND, the EU should announce that an attack on an embassy of one of its member-states is an attack on all of them, and that similar actions will be taken in all the EU countries. So, if the mob in "Imamia" attacks the Danish embassy or its personnel, let the EU close every one of the Imamian embassies in the EU, deport every Imamian, and seize every euro of their assets.

All of this is coming from the peaceful moderates, of course. The radicals can't be bothered with the small stuff, not when there are more buildings & innocent lives to destroy. Becoming harder to tell them apart.

Angus Og MacDonald: Good post. Welcome to the fight. I'm sure by now you know you'll be called a hater by the clueless but, as they would say down in West Virginia, "Just pay them never no mind."

Muslims do not so much "repudiate" laws or customs made by others as never to have accepted them in the first place.

If only we could elect a Genghiz Khan, instead of the wussies that we have running right now. In fact, come to think of it, we would have done well in responding to various embassy captures or bombings with declarations of war, be it Iran, Lebanon, Tanzania or Kenya.

AND, the EU should announce that an attack on an embassy of one of its member-states is an attack on all of them, and that similar actions will be taken in all the EU countries. So, if the mob in "Imamia" attacks the Danish embassy or its personnel, let the EU close every one of the Imamian embassies in the EU, deport every Imamian, and seize every euro of their assets.

Posted by: ebonystone at April 23, 2008 1:21 PM

Nice idea, however the actual response from the EU will be one of sniveling cowardice and the offer of more jizya so that the mohamadans cut their throats last.

Well, I guess its time for another Christian uprising:
"'Basic Instinct' Director Paul Verhoeven: Jesus Was Son of Mary and Roman Rapist"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352277,00.html

We see Hollywood churning out this kind of garbage on a regular basis. I guess we will soon hear the news stories about all the Christians rioting, burning cars and demanding Verhoeven's head!

Maybe not.

Angus Og MacDonald: Good post. Welcome to the fight. I'm sure by now you know you'll be called a hater by the clueless but, as they would say down in West Virginia, "Just pay them never no mind."
Posted by: Wellington

And even farther south we say "Just pay them no never mind." ;)

we would have done well in responding to various embassy captures or bombings with declarations of war, be it Iran, Lebanon, Tanzania or Kenya.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

Exactly so, Infidel Pride. In the case of the Iranian seizure of the American embassy in 1979, no less a figure than George Kennan wrote that this was an act of war, and that we should declare war on Iran. As he pointed out, this did not necessarily mean a Normandy-style invasion, or Dresden-style carpet-bombing. But a declaration of war would create a certain state of affairs recognized in international law: the U.S. could then legally have rounded up and deported all Iranian national in the U.S. (especially the thousands of obnoxious student protesters), seized all assets of the Iranian government and Iranian nationals, seized or sunk every Iranian ship on the seas, and blockaded the Iranian coast.
But we had the peanut man in the White House, and so we did virtually nothing except whine.

So, if someone is going to do something as an 'aggrevated' terror threat does that make them:

muslim or a terrorist, and what validates either of them to be 'aggrevated' vs. 'extremist', or is still the standard 'it's is just another muslim wanting to kill' apply here.

Or is it the 'threat' is aggrevated but when there are people killed then it is 'terror'

Angus Og MacDonald,
I am no racist. My problems are not about the colour of your skin or the shape of your eyes. My problem is in how these people wish to organise society and their backward views on culturally acceptable behaviour.

Welcome to the beginning of the end of blind tolerance for the intolerable.

Keep some gentle but constant pressure on your liberal friends to consider the questions raised and information learned about Islamic culture. Liberals are a largely an untapped reservoir of political and cultural strength needed in this effort. Many still do not know, or do not want to know, the peril all our freedoms are in.

Angus Og Macdonald

a Scot, perchance? If so: a hearty welcome from this Australian who is half Scots by ancestry.

I enjoyed your "I am intolerant..." declaration.

How long have you been visiting and reading here before you decided to don your nom de plume and join the conversation?

Just in case you missed it, I will re-post here, for you and for any other newbies, one of the best things ever posted on this site, the statement that I have dubbed 'Hugh Fitzgerald's 27 Theses Against Jihad and Sharia', or perhaps, "The Twenty-Seven Appalling Things, or, the Twenty Seven Deplorables", from November 2007.

It deserves to be copied, done up in poster form, Gutenberg broadsheet style, and plastered all over university campuses and residential college noticeboards up and down the Western World - and India, too.

"HUGH FITZGERALD – “I DEPLORE…”

"1) Muhammad is [regarded by Muslims as] a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

"2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advice as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

"3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

"4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

"5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.

"6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

"7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

"8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

"9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

"10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

"11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

"12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?

"13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

"14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

"15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

"16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

"17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

"18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

"19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

"20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

"21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

"22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

"23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

"24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves, should be accepted in non-Muslim societies.

"25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

"26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

"27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

"I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

"If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim."
Posted by: Hugh Fitgerald, on www.jihadwatch.org, November 1, 2007 11:25 AM.

What can one say to that, but...WOW!!!

Now - who will be brave enough to take a group of friends, and stand in the middle of a university campus, in Oxford, say, or in Sydney, or Yale, or Harvard, or the Sorbonne, and read THAT...aloud?

"We'll bomb you if you say Islam is violent!"

Good we have the free press.

Ehm, not so free, after all?

Well, good thing we have the Internet. Many targets too small to bother with.

Of course an attack on an embassy is an act of war.

The only reason not to treat is such is - racist.

When the Danish government, and the rest of the EU, and NATO for that matter, don't react to an act of war from the muslim countries, it's because they obviously don't see the muslim governments as equals. They see them as inferior, as children - "they can't help themselves, poor souls" "ooh, they're having a fit again, better ignore them"

That's pure racism - if indeed islam is a race, which it must be since I'm racist as I loathe islam....

hmm..the world is turned up side down.

Obviously the only right answer to any attack on a NATO members embassy is military response from NATO. Right here, right now.

I agree with PMK, once again. I wonder when diplomatic personnel are going to simply refuse to serve in these crap holes, for their own safety. Civilized diplomacy is impossible in that part of the world, and we shouldn't be lulled into complacency by their complicit Western-educated leaders.