Pakistani mufti insists that "Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified"

He said there is international conspiracy [code for "Crusader-Zionist Alliance"] against Islam

hell, yeah they're conspiracy underfoot. it goes along side of the muslim conspiracy to undermine our freedoms.

i am proud to be a member of the Crusader-Zionist Alliance

Have they not been saying that for the past 7 years and then it is only the Mohammedans who suddenly blow up things and plot for mass murders; after which they proclaim the name of their blood thirsty god allah. Well that certainly links Islam with terror.

Once again, I find it revealing that Islam is so strict about behavior in general, yet so lax when justifying warfare and/or killing.

11,972 terror attacks - the Methodists got some SERIOUS catching up to do. But then again, maybe he just can't count that high.

"Mufti Munib-ur-Rehman said Islam does not allow anybody to take lives of innocent people by any means."

However Islam's definition of "Innocent", versus yours and mine as infidels, are totally different.

Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified

Black is White.

1 + 1 = 3.

Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified.

Islam does not allow anybody to take lives of innocent people by any means.

Both statements are one hundred percent true.
In reverse order:

Islam doesn't consider anyone who is not a Muslim to be innocent, meaning taking their lives is not terrorism. It's on a par with people of opposing armies slaying one another on the battlefield. Islam is the originator of the strategy: if you're not with us, you're against us.

Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood for Muslims who are in the same sect and in the same tribe and in the same country and who follow the same leader....

No one else is innocent, so go ahead and kill them for Allah. No terrorism there!

THAT is the religion of peace and brotherhood.

Well, there is that 1400 year history of the endless jihad against the kuffar than might be hard to explain.

Anyone, anywhere, who resists the removal of all obstacles to the spread of Islam -- including Israeli children who will, you see, grow up to serve in the armed forces of an Infidel nation-state on land once possessed by Muslims -- are, according to the views of this imam and a billion other Muslims, not "innocents." Whenever that word "innocent" is now used by apologists for Islam -- a word that, like "peace" or, still worse, "peace and justice" (phrases that began to be used in sinister fashion by sinister groups, beginning with the Soviet experts in Agitprop, especially in the late 1940s and 1950s, during the heyday of world-peace youth gatherings, and have not stopped since) -- you can be sure that the use of the word is hardly innocent.

So hold it up for inspection and analysis. Don't let anyone get away with the undilated-upon use of that word, and make sure to cross-examine the user as to what exactly he intends to cover, and what he intends to leave unprotected, by the use of that vague word "innocent."

"He underlined the need for addressing root causes behind the menace of extremism and terrorism."

Without understanding the root cause, one will never find a root solution.

The US congress will never resolve the US financial crisis, because Congress and lobbying is the root cause.

Likewise with Islam, the root cause is the Qur'an itself. Islam will never solve the problem because they cannot or will not recognize the root cause.

This from the same man who also asserted that “if a state is truly Islamic it would have to kill the apostate."
..................................

Well, you can't have apostates spreading mischief in the land! After all, how peaceful is that?

more:

“I am not ready to admit that our religion Islam has any link with terrorism. We have been seeing suicide attacks in some non-muslim countries in past”

Yes, thank goodness for the Tamil Tigers! See, see, non-Islamic suicide bombings! And, uh, who else? Um, wait, I know! The kamikaze! So what if that was over sixty years ago. And what about the Shining Path in Peru? They were known to use donkeys to deliver bombs. How are we to know that those donkey's weren't suicidal?

And, there is the small fact that while suicide is indeed condemned in Islam, that usually extends no further than despondant people who take their own lives. *Suicide-homicide attacks* are considered in an entirely different light. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, sometimes called "the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist", has called martyrdom operations:

"The greatest of all sorts of Jihad in the Cause of Allah. A martyr operation is carried out by a person who sacrifices himself, deeming his life less value than striving in the Cause of Allah, in the cause of restoring the land and preserving the dignity."

And besides, everybody knows that suicide bombers are just "fighting against oppression". George Bush is the "real terrorist".

Oh, get a life.

We're so over your "rop" crap.

Commentary on today's WND from a man who knows little about Islam but what friends have told him.

"Our tolerance for Islam is not safe"

"I also have no desire to see those Muslims who simply want to be left alone to live their lives persecuted in any way. However, it has become undeniably apparent to me that Islam is an indigestible mass in the belly of the West. As members of a "faith" under the auspices of our republic, Muslims cannot be assimilated. The unequivocal nature of this truth cannot be underestimated; to do so will mean the eventual destruction of America as we know it."
Erik Rush

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76719

He said there is international conspiracy [code for "Crusader-Zionist Alliance"] against Islam and Pakistan.

I certainly hope so...if not we need to start conspiring fast, or faster.

Spencer quotes Munib ur Rehman as saying, “if a state is truly Islamic it would have to kill the apostate." The reference he gives is this:

dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C29%5Cstory_29-3-2006_pg3_1

In that article, Muni bur Rehman is quoted as saying, “if a state is truly Islamic,” and everything else said by him is paraphrased. Spencer’s quote is incorrect.
The author of the Pakistan Daily Times article (which, it should be noted, is an editorial from an unnamed author), says that Rehman made his remarks when he “came on TV” on the “same day President Musharraf delivered himself of the wisdom about Islam and modernity.”
President Musharraf made his remarks on 27 March, 2006. (1) Rehman, then, made his remarks on that same day. The issue that is being referred to is the case of Abdorrahman Panjsheri, who was charged in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. Upon searching for any remarks made by Rehman about this case on both the web and in Lexis Nexis, the only thing that can be found is Spencer’s article from the Pakistan Daily Times.
Lexis Nexis does report on an Afghani TV show from 27 March, 2006. (2) The BBC report is the entire text of a TV show about the Abdorrahman Panjsheri incident which aired on the same day as Musharraf’s remarks, which is the same day that the Daily Times said that Rehman made his comments. The Afghani TV show, however, did not say a word about Rehman. If it is true that Rehman made these remarks, it was on another Afghani network (how many are there?) that the BBC decided was not important enough to mention. This seems unlikely, as the BBC had over 20 stories about the Abdorrahman case in the 4 days surrounding 27 March, 2006.
Nowhere else on the web or Lexis Nexis is there any mention of Rehman’s stance on imposing the death penalty for apostasy. The sole source of this stance is an article in the Pakistan Daily Times written in the commentary section which paraphrases Rehman and had no named author. Why does every story on this site rely on such little evidence?

1) BBC Monitoring International Reports
March 27, 2006 Monday
PAKISTANI PRESIDENT SAYS ISLAM IS COMPATIBLE WITH MODERNITY
2) BBC Monitoring International Reports, March 28, 2006 Tuesday
AFGHAN INDEPENDENT TV SAYS CHRISTIAN'S TRIAL RAISES MAJOR QUESTIONS
Source: Aina TV, Sheberghan, in Dari 1530 gmt 27 Mar 06

OT Irony alert from Pakistan: Hafiz Saeed, the brother of the soon to be deported Massachusets iman Mohammed Masood, has been granted permission to import an armored Land Cruiser into Pakistan as "he fears a possible attempt on his life by his “external enemies”".

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1194581

"Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified"

Only the truly ill-informed, or those who believe a lie, would buy into this wore out slogan.

...He said there is international conspiracy [code for "Crusader-Zionist Alliance"] against Islam and Pakistan. Some external forces are funding, training and motivating the anti-social elements in Pakistan to achieve their nefarious designs, he added... (from the article)

In other words, Ruet-al-Hilal says that the only reason there is Islamic terrorism is because we are bothering them with our "nefarious designs".
Many in our CIA would agree with him but this is totally untrue.

The actual reason we went there was to counterattack for their surprise 9/11 attack. If they attack again, they had better have a lot of fear. The next time they attack, we will not go there with rehabilitation in mind. We are learning that rehabilitation for them is not possible.

Dave742,

I found a news bulletin released by the Afghani embassy in Canada, titled' "EDITORIAL: Taliban, Pakistan and modernity (Pakistan media)", which backs up what Robert says about the event. Here is the paragraph:

"Other more ironic things happened the same day President Musharraf delivered himself of the wisdom about Islam and modernity. A Muslim convert to Christianity in Afghanistan was saved by subterfuge (it was said he was mentally sick and therefore couldn’t be held accountable under any law for converting to Christianity) by the Kabul government from being done to death, triggering protests from the Islamists who wanted him killed. The clerical view in Pakistan that appeared in the press, too, wanted the man killed. Then Pakistan’s top cleric, Mufti Munib ur Rehman, who chairs the moon-sighting committee on Eid days, came on TV and announced that “if a state is truly Islamic” it would have to kill the apostate." As far as the exact verbiage he uses to convey the message is technically unclear due to the placement of quotation marks. We would probably have to have an actual audio transcript here to convince you? Just step back and look at all of the facts in this case.

The is plenty on the subject here if you want to check it out. http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2006/april/02/index.php

"Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified"

Only the truly ill-informed, or those who believe a lie, would buy into this wore out slogan.

Posted by: champ at October 2, 2008 11:55 AM

That would be POTUS/Commander? Granted, this message is old (right after 9/11) but has never been revoked: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html ...but, supported: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080930-2.html
Now, most will discard this president as so yesterday.. but stop for a moment and think about think about the damage !?

Hi, Alert - Yes, I would certainly put Bush in a separate category as someone who pushes a lie, because he is not ill-informed. His statements are shocking & dangerous. Good riddance.

Posted by: dave742 at October 2, 2008 11:36 AM

Some rudimentary googling has provided the source of the interviewer that got that quote as being Kamran Khan from Geo TV.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/11971-sunni-sunni-conflict-too-comes-surface.html

ethoman:
Your quote from Afghani embassy in Canada is a reprint of the Pakistan Daily Times article I already mentioned. I said this:

"Upon searching for any remarks made by Rehman about this case on both the web and in Lexis Nexis, the only thing that can be found is Spencer’s article from the Pakistan Daily Times."

When I said this, I did realize that there are reprints of the editorial story from the Pakistan Daily Times with no author, and there are references to the editorial story from the Pakistan Daily Times with no author, but everything relates to this one story.

"We would probably have to have an actual audio transcript here to convince you?" -ethoman

When something really happens, BBC Worldwide reports on it. They reported on an Afghani TV show on the correct date relating to the Abdorrahman story, but it did not mention Rehman. Why would the BBC report the entire texts of an inconsequential TV shows relating to the Abdorrahman story, but neglect to report on a TV show airing the same day where Pakistans "top cleric" said that Abdorrahman should be put to death? The BBC had over 20 stories in 4 days on Abdorrahman. Why did they ignore the one where Pakistan's top cleric said Abdorrahmanshould be killed? Why is there no mention anywhere at any time of Pakistan top cleric's stance on putting to death those convicted of apostasy? Doesn't that seem odd?

"Just step back and look at all of the facts in this case." -ethoman

That's exactly what I did. I am the only one here who did so.

Posted by: dave742 at October 2, 2008 1:32 PM

If the BBC didn't report specifically on that comment, then it must not be true?

awake:
Yes, I saw that link. The reference given at the bottom of the section you refer to is to the same editorial story from the Pakistan Daily Times with no author.
On the same day that Kamran Khan interviewed Pakistan's top cleric on Geo TV, the National Press Trust of India reported on a Geo TV report that interviewed Shah Zaman, a media advisor to Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan, who said that clashes between followers of Mufti Munir Shakir and Pir Saifur Rehman had started. It's funny how India would report a story from Geo TV on a clash between two religious leaders, but neglected to report on a Geo TV interview on the same day where Pakistans top cleric said that he supports the death penaly for apostasy. You would think the Indian Press would have wanted to report that.

"If the BBC didn't report specifically on that comment, then it must not be true?"

As I keep showing, yes, there is serious doubt. If you have any experience with Lexis Nexis, you would agree. BBC Worldwide reports on everything. When you read about a 4 word quote from Ahmadinejad, the BBC has the entire 5,000 word text of the speech. They report on everything. With 20 stories on the subject within the span of a few days, it is very odd that they would ignore a story where Pakistan's top cleric says that he supports the death penalty for apostasy.

If an analogous situation happened where the suspect report said something you didn't like, and there was absolutely no support for it, you would agree with my assessment. You bias prevents you in this case.

Dave, could you please provide evidence that the cleric did not make those statements? One would expect that if the cleric in fact did not make the statements, someone would have brought the article to his attention and he would have made quite a public fuss about the Pakistan Daily Times misrepresenting him. But instead, your argument is that since it wasn't reported by the BBC, it didn't happen.
I would make the argument that lots of things that happen don't get reported by the BBC. For example, I'm betting that the BBC will probably not mention today's comments on Jihadwatch by dave742.

But on the other hand, maybe this whole thing of executing apostates was made up by the Jews to make Muslims look bad? Maybe Abdorrahman Panjsheri was never brought up on capital charges for the simple act of deciding to change his personal choice in religions? If, though, he was, I wonder where the Afghan court got the crazy idea that such a trial was in any way appropriate? One would expect Muslims worldwide to protest rabidly against such an affront to True Islam which self evidently teaches limitless peace, tolerance, and justice.

Actually, my bias has nothing to do with it. Your's does.

You made a point about an embedded link from 2006, making no mention of the write-up specifically on the thread to the current topic. No, you skipped right over that one.

So, it appears that the referenced embedded link is not supported to your standards for you to deem it to be true. Fin, that is a claim you can reasonably make, though you cannot prove it beyond any doubt.

Your egregious bias did not appear until the end of your initial post when you wrote:

"Why does every story on this site rely on such little evidence?"

All of them?

So, in your estimation, one potential link that may or not be true automatically lead you to the claim that every story at JW is essentially not true or more specifically, devoid of any real evidence to support them?

I apologize for the mental gymnastics and willful suspension of reality required to buy into your claim.

Bias indeed, but certainly not mine.

Awake, I'm betting with those kind of mental gymnastic skills, this guy could give us all an excellent lecture on how "9/11 Was An Inside Job."

Your bias prevents you in this case.

Posted by: dave742

Sounds like you are defending Islam? If not, then you sure would make a great defense attorney to have in their corner. I'm still trying to figure out YOUR bias with regards to Islam. Care to elaborate?

awake:
The day before Geo TV showed Pakistan's top cleric saying that Abdorrahman should be put to death for apostasy, the Press Trust of India reported that Geo TV showed "brief footage" of Sayed Salahuddin, the leader of Pakistan-based terror outfit Hizbul Mujahideen. This story is obviously much more important than Pakistan's top cleric saying that Abdorrahman should be put to death for apostasy.

"All of them?"

Yes, I exaggerated when I said "every story". I should have said "why does it seem like...". There are many incidents like what I brought up here, but I usually don't have time to detail them. IMO, your worldview is built on hundreds of stories similar to this of dubious credibility. I think your worldview is built on a house of cards, which is dangerous when you are advocating wars, possibly nuclear wars, based upon this worldview.

"IMO, your worldview is built on hundreds of stories similar to this of dubious credibility. I think your worldview is built on a house of cards, which is dangerous when you are advocating wars, possibly nuclear wars, based upon this worldview."

Posted by: dave742 at October 2, 2008 2:18 PM

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, with your straw-man argument that I, Robert, anyone associated with this site advocates wars, (possibly nuclear ones), notwithstanding.

Since there are "hundreds" of stories of this nature, it should be easy for you to provide several examples, right?

awake:
"You made a point about an embedded link from 2006, making no mention of the write-up specifically on the thread to the current topic. No, you skipped right over that one."

The point of this thread is that what Rehman says in the AP link is hypocritical in light of the fact that he said those who commit apostasy should be killed. If Rehman never said this about apostasy, there is nothing left in the thread to comment about.

If you'd like me to address the story of this thread, I will. In the AP story, Rehman said this:

“I am not ready to admit that our religion Islam has any link with terrorism. We have been seeing suicide attacks in some non-muslim countries in past.”

This is very true, and has been shown to be true by a University of Chicago researcher in a study funded by the Pentagon. There is no correlation between suicide bombing and Islam, but there is a very strong correlation between suicide attacks and occupation. The most prolific group that uses suicide bombing is not Muslim, and most suicide bombers are secular. Before you question me on this, read the discussion on the subject here:

pajamasmedia.com/blog/comparing-sarah-palin-to-osama-bin-laden/

“Since there are "hundreds" of stories of this nature, it should be easy for you to provide several examples, right?” –awake

Sure. These links talk about a few:

jihadwatch.org/archives/022886.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/022790.php

Here is a story of a fabricated quote from Ynet and the Washington Times:
“Ahmadinejad praises Iran for being able to recruit thousands of suicide bombers a day. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised his country's ability to recruit ‘hundreds of suicide bombers a day,’ saying ‘suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.’ Amadinejad said the will to commit suicide was ‘one of the best ways of life.’” (1)

Ahmadinejad supposedly made this statement on a two day trip he made to Khuzestan on March 31 and April 1, 2007.The quote above, or any part of it, has only appeared in the MSM one time, in the Washington Times over 3 months later. (2) The Times article was a Commentary by de Borchgrave listing fabricated quotes such as this one, and was not an article reporting on events in real time. At the time of the supposed quote, all the world was watching Ahmadinejad because it was soon after Iran had captured the British soldiers in Iranian territory. Even under the intense media focus, there was not a single MSM outlet that reported any part of this quote at the time it was supposedly made. Not one. Many MSM outlets covered Ahmadinejad’s trip to Khuzestan, including the Independent (3), Deutsche-Presse Agentur (4), the Washington Post (5), Xinhuanet News Service (6), the UPI (7), Agence France Presse (8), and the Toronto Star (9). All missed the quote. Do you want to know why? Because YNet made it up! A complete fabrication.

Here are some real quotes from BBC Monitoring from Ahmadinejad’s visit to Khazestan:

“British occupying forces entered our waters, and our guardsmen, with bravery, vigilance and the height of integrity, arrested them. But the arrogant people, because of their spirit of arrogance and selfishness, instead of apologizing, behave as if the Iranian nation owes them something.”
“After World War II, too, they considered themselves victorious and founded international organizations for the continuation of their rule over the people of the world.”
“Unfortunately, today, the arrogant powers blatantly violate the laws that they have drawn up themselves and the international organizations they have founded.”
“The arrogant people in today's world have nothing to do but to pillage and plunder other nations and they keep their economies going by stealing other nations' resources.”
"The occupation of Iraq, which has just completed its fourth year, has brought nothing to the Iraqi people but death, destruction and insecurity.”
"The occupiers invaded Iraq on promises of freeing its people. But actually they went to war to fill their pockets and expand their market for weapons.”
"Today, powers espousing liberalism have reached the end of their line. Their promises of bringing prosperity to human beings have been proven false and their policies have only contributed to greater insecurity and poverty in the world."
"Arrogant leaders are among the most hated individuals in the world. They try to impose their will through threats and offer to hold talks to achieve their selfish interests." (10)

1) realite-eu.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=9dJBLLNkGiF&b=2315291&ct=4058419 quoting YnetNews “Iranian President lauds suicide bombers invincible,” April 1, 2007 by Dudi Cohen. See: ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383620,00.html
2) The Washington Times, “Israel vs. Hezbollah, Round 2,” July 11, 2007 by Arnaud de Borchgrave
3) news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2411392.ece
4) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “Ahmadinejad: Britain should apologize for naval incident”, April 1, 2007. A copy is here: rawstory.com/news/dpa/Ahmadinejad_Britain_should_apologiz_03312007.html
5) Washington Post, “Bush says Iran Must release ‘Hostages’,” April1, 2007
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033100198.html
6) Xinhua General News Service, “Iran's president renews promise on nuclear success,” April 1 2007
news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/01/content_5921578.htm
7) UPI, “Iran celebrates 'Republic Day',” April 1, 2007. A copy is here:
newsdaily.com//index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070922-14584600-bc-iran-ahmadinejad.xml
8) AFP, “Iran shows new footage of British sailors as talks continue,” April 1, 2007. A copy is here:
channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/267923/1/.html
9) The Toronto Star, “Britain softens tone on captives in Iran,” April 1 2007
thestar.com/article/198245
10) BBC Monitoring quoting IRNA, “Iranian President Says Britain Should Have Apologized”, March 31, 2007, and “Foreign occupiers in Iraq have no reason to stay -Iran president,” April 1, 2007

Here is the story of another fabricated quote:
“We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.” (1)

This statement has been quoted in the Washington Times (2), on the floor of the Senate by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (R) (3), and has even ended up in a bill introduced in Congress. (4) None of these sources gives a reference for the quote. The Washington Times article was a commentary written by Arnaud de Borchgrave, and was not an original report of the quote. The Times article was a rant that listed several quotes by Ahmadinejad, nearly all of which are manufactured lies, as I will show this one to be. A Lexis Nexis search shows that here is absolutely no other MSM source that reports this quote, or any part of it.

The reference given for this quote from Realite (see note 1) is an article in French from LeMonde (5), reporting on a visit that Ahmadinejad made to Syria on January 20, 2006. Here is the relevant quote from the article:

"La République arabe syrienne, qui résiste en première ligne à l'agression israélienne, et la République islamique d'Iran, qui porte le flambeau de l'éveil islamique dans le monde musulman, joueront un rôle vital dans la région."

I suspect that an article in French was chosen to discourage anyone from checking its accuracy. It only takes a minute, however, to translate the article using AltaVista Babelfish. The English translation of the above using that source is:

“The Syrian Arab Republic, which resists in first line the Israeli aggression, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which carries the torch of the Islamic awakening in the Moslem world, will play a vital part in the area.” (6)

This is the only Ahmadinejad quote in the LeMonde article that even comes close to the “Islam is ready to rule the world” quote, and it bears little resemblance to it. Playing a “vital part in the area” in not quite the same as wanting to “rule the world.”

Upon doing a Google search, I found that two other references are routinely given for the original “rule the world” quote. The first is from the website called Iran Focus (7), which claims that the quotes in their article come from Mehr News, who was reporting on a trip that Ahmadinejad made to Qom on January 5, 2006. (The LeMonde reference given y Realite was reporting on an event two weeks after the source of the real quote). The Iran Focus article is from the same day. Mehr News does not have archives that go back that far, so the original cannot be checked. BBC Monitoring, however, does monitor Mehr News reports, and they did have an article that translated a Mehr News report from that day. (8) There was no mention of any of the quotes contained in the Iran Focus article. If any of the Iran Focus quotes appeared in the Mehr News article, why wouldn’t the BBC include them?
Without being able to see the original source, any article written by Iran Focus cannot be taken seriously, due to the fact that this website is a front for the MEK, a terrorist group (9) dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government.
How do I know that Iran Focus is run by the MEK? First, let’s look at the person who owns the site. Mohammad Hanif Jazayeri is the Sole Director of the site (10), and essentially runs the site single handed (a man named Javid Akbari has been called the websites “co-director” (11), but his name appears on the web very rarely, and has never appeared in the MSM). Mohammad’s father was a member of the MEK, and Mohammad claims that his father was killed by the Iranian government because of this. Motivated by his father’s death, Mohammad is now working to get the MEK removed from the terrorist list. (12) Jazayeri is also associated with two other organizations as well, one of which is called “Gulf Intelligence Monitor.” This organization has no official presence of the web, and is mentioned only one time in the mainstream press, in an Agence France Presse article (13) where they described the organization as a “research institute.” This “institute” has two people associated with it: the Sole Director, whose name is Abraham Rad KIan, and Jazayeri, who became the Secretary (14) in 2003 (at the age of 19) when he replaced the original secretary after he resigned the same day that he was hired. In reality, this “research institute” is a phantom organization which is used to give credibility to statements made by other members of the MEK. For example, Iran Focus can write an article that says, “According to Simon Bailey of the London-based Gulf Intelligence Monitor” (15), and it sounds impressive, even though “Gulf Intelligence Monitor” does not exist in reality. Simon Bailey may likewise not exist. Jazayeri is also the Secretary for the International Committee for a Free Iran (see note 14), another two person organization which lobbies governments to try and get the MEK taken off the terrorist lists. This organization also has no official web presence and has never appeared in the MSM. Jazayeri also gives 5 star reviews on Amazon for books written by MEK members, and one star reviews of books by respected authors that the FBI uses for its reports on the MEK. (16)
Further evidence that Mo Jazayeri is part of the MEK is found through a person named Laila Jazayeri. Laila is a relative of Mo Jazayeri (probably his mother) (17), and it is clear that she is also an MEK member. She is the Sole Director of another MEK-run one person company called the Association of Anglo-Iranian Women. She uses this company in the same way Mohammad uses Gulf Intelligence Monitor, as a credibility tool. Her pro-MEK remarks that appear repeatedly on MEK websites are listed as coming from the Association of Anglo-American Women, and it appears respectable (18). For example, when Maryam Rajavi (the cult-leader), was arrested in France, ten MEK members set themselves on fire in protest, and two died as a result. Laila Jazayeri “director of the Association of Iranian Women in the UK,” called these people “the cream of Iranian intellectual society.” (19)

Iran Focus is essentially a single individual who is a member of a terrorist organization who started his own website in order to pass along MEK propaganda masquerading as news. This group and website obviously have a clear motive to manufacture false quotes and to attribute them to Ahmadinejad. Iran Focus is a front for a cult-like, terrorist group, and is not a credible source. It is interesting that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs specifically names Iran Focus when they cite this quote (20). Our government is quoting information that is fabricated by terrorist groups, and we include the quote in the text of our laws (see note 4). Very funny.

The other source of the quote is not any better. Some sources (21) point to a WorldNetDaily article (22) as the source of the quote, which in turn attributes it to a man named Mehran Riazaty, who they say quoted Ahmadinejad in an article he wrote for the blog Regime Change Iran (23), operated by Gary Metz. First of all, having a blog as a source is not credible. Second, “Mehran Riazaty” only appears in blogs, and a search on Lexis Nexis shows that his name has never appeared anywhere in the media or wire services, ever. This person is probably not real. Thirdly, the quotes do not actually come from Riazaty anyway. If you go to the Regime Change Iran article, you will notice that other than the first sentence, the rest of the actual article is copied word for word from the Iran Focus article, which we already covered. Riazaty’s contribution only appears at the “comments” section at the end of the article. This Regime Change Iran article, then, is simply using the Iran Focus article as a source. Interestingly, even the Regime Change Iran blog calls Iran Focus “an MEK website”. (24)

Result: this quote is a fabrication.

WINEP has a different version of the quote:

“Islam is not limited to a city or country and every Muslim should have a global insight. If we intend to run the world, we should pave the way for it.” (25)

The WINEP article quotes the above from the Iranian Labor News Agency, which is a reformist news organization. (26) The ILNA site does not have archives that go back far enough to check the quote directly. The day after the speech, the BBC reported the same quote from the ILNA in a short (140 word) article where this quote was the only subject and the sole purpose of the article. (27) A WINEP quote is not trustworthy by itself, but with corroboration from the BBC, it is clear that the ILNA did indeed attribute this statement to Ahmadinejad. What is strange is that the day before, the same day the speech aired on Iranian TV, the BBC printed a very long (nearly 3,000 word) article where they quoted most of the speech. (28) In this article directly from the BBC (and not a reference to another news source), the ILNA quote does not appear, nor does anything close. How is it possible that a BBC translator could watch the entire speech and report nearly all of it, except for that quote, but then following day the BBC runs a separate article whose sole purpose is to report the quote from the ILNA? If the BBC translator heard that statement, why didn’t he include it in his translation? Why wasn’t it reported that day? Isn’t that strange?
It is also strange that neither the “rule the world” nor the “run the world” version was ever reported by any mainstream media. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported on Ahmadinejad’s visit to Qom, and said nothing about him wanting to rule, nor run, the world. (29) Agence France Presse also covered the visit, and no word from them either. (30) Same with the AP. (31)
Four major news organizations covered the speech, one of which (the BBC) translated nearly the entire thing, and not one of them reported this quote. Only the ILNA, a reformist news agency, reported it.
Even if the quote is accurate, this version is wholly different than the original. In this quote, Ahmadinejad says that Islam should “run the world,” and not “rule the world,” which has quite a different meaning. Ahmadinejad is quoted using the term “run the world” quite often in the MSM, along with similar terms such as “lead the word” and “manage the world”. It helps to look at the context in which he uses these terms, so let’s do so.
First of all, Ahmadinejad realizes that since at least WWII, it is the US that has been running the world. This is clear to most reasonable people. Even President Nixon acknowledged this when he made his farewell speech to his staff and said that “I would love to have talked to you and found out how to run the world.” (32) Amadinejad thinks that the US has not done a good job running the world, and that they should no longer do so. He says that “the time for world empires has ended. The U.S. government thinks that it's still the period after World War II. That when they came out as a victor. And enjoyed special rights. And can rule therefore, over the rest of the world. I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world. Because these policies are moving the world towards war.” (33) (Here Ahmadinejad uses the word “rule” interchangeably with “run”). He reiterates this theme when he says “I officially declare that the age of relations arising from the Second World War, as well as the era of materialistic thoughts based on arrogance and domination, is well over now.” (34) He believes that the people of the world are "upset because of the atmosphere of threat, tension confrontation, arrogance, [and] hatred” and that “these things cannot lead the world to calmness and sustainable peace." (35) As a result, he says that "these powers…have lost the competence to lead the world." (36) In response to the US system of domination and oppression, he thinks that there should be resistance from the rest of the world. As far as Iran, he says, “We are living our own lives. The U.S. government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their own lives. They should serve the interests of the U.S. people. They should not interfere in our affairs.” (37) He wants this idea to be a model for the rest of the world: “Our domestic mission is to build a genuinely independent, powerful, progressive and model country while our international mission is to lead the world to salvation through resistance against bullying powers." (38)
Ahmadinejad believes that in place of the US system of world leadership, “the Islamic republic of Iran and our people [have] an efficient system on how to manage the world.” (39) When he challenged Bush to a debate, he wanted to demonstrate “how this (U.S.) method is oppressive and compare it with the proposals of the Iranian nation on how to run the world better, different from the U.S. method of use of force and special advantage.” (40) Ahmadinejad believes that instead of the US system of force, “we can run the world through logic” (41) and that “on the basis of law and justice, we can better lead the world." (42)

So Ahmadinejad uses this type of language often. When you look at the quote in context, then, you see a different story. Ahmadinejad thinks it is wrong to run the world using “force and special advantage”, based on “arrogance and domination” because this “cannot lead the world to calmness and sustainable peace”, and is instead “moving the world towards war”. As a result, the US has “lost the competence to lead the world”. He believes that the US should “not interfere in [Iran’s] affairs” and should instead “live their own lives”. He wants Iran to be a model on how to “lead the world to salvation through resistance against bullying powers." In place of US domination and oppression, he wants to “run the world through logic” on the “basis of law and justice”. This is the context, and I agree with him completely. Even if the WINEP quote is accurate, it is certainly not objectionable when looked at in context.

As we see, Ahmadinejad uses the term “run the world” interchangeably with “lead the word” or “manage the world”. This is very similar to the rhetoric of many US Presidents. GW Bush, for example, says that “this country is a great country, and we've led the world, and we'll continue to lead the world” (43), and “I believe we've been called by history to lead the world”. (44) His father made similar statements such as: “We are the undisputed, respected leader of the world. We are the United States of America.” (45)
Jimmy Carter said “We are the leader of the world”. (46) From Gore: “the United States is now the natural leader of the world”. (47) And, according to Nixon, we have been the leader since at least 1960: “America today is the leader of the world”. (48) It was even part of the Republican Party platform: “America is and must remain the leader of the world.” (49) I am not sure why it is OK for the US to consistently use this rhetoric, but not Ahmadinejad.

Instead of focusing on fabricated quotes or mangled quotes taken out of context, maybe you should read some of Ahmadinejad’s speeches in their entirety. Here is a portion of the speech where the WINEP quote came from, translated by the BBC:
“I have previously said our late Imam [Khomeyni] and our dear leader have repeatedly said that our nation and our revolution want peace, tranquility and justice for all the world. One of the basic ideals of the Islamic Revolution is based on the notion of justice throughout the earth. The Islamic Revolution is opposed to injustice, discrimination and destruction of peoples. It wants the establishment of peace and justice for all the people of the world. People who are unjust cannot be the guardians of justice. People who have been responsible for the massacre of nations, rape of nations, and acts of treachery against nations cannot be the guardians of security, peace or justice. Look at the world situation. If there is war, if there is killing, if there is aggression against people's rights, the arrogant powers and the ruling hegemony is present. They are present if the wealth of a nation is being looted. They are involved where there is injustice.
Those who are claiming to be the advocates of human rights, peace and tranquility, have a dark record of oppression and crimes. Those who have no record of attempting to realize the rights of the nations and to restore peace and justice are standing against the oppressed nation of Iran and claim to be the advocates of peace and human rights”.(50)

You won’t see that quote in the MSM.
1) realite-eu.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=9dJBLLNkGiF&b=2315291&ct=4058419
2) Washington Times, “Israel vs. Hezbollah, Round 2,” July 11, 2007 by Arnaud de Borchgrave washingtontimes.com/article/20070711/COMMENTARY/107110004/1012/commentary
3) Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions, “Sessions on Missile Defende Amendment,” July 12, 2007
sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=278961
4) HR 1062, “Security and Victory in Iraq Act of 2007,” under “Congress makes the following findings” See: thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1062_ih.xml
5) LeMonde, “Damas et Téhéran entendent ‘résister’ ensemble,” Jan. 21, 2006 lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-727571,36-733188@51-766456,0.html
6) This translation matches the BBC’s direct quote from the Syrian visit, which they had the full text of: “We are confident that both the Syrian Arab Republic, as the country that stands fast on the forward front facing the Israeli enemy and the Israeli onslaught, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the country bearing the banner of the Islamic awakening in the Muslim world, play an important and crucial role on the stage and in the region.” BBC Monitoring International Reports quoting SANA, Jan. 20, 2006, “Syrian, Iranian Presidents Discuss Ties, Regional Issues at News Conference”.
7) Iran Focus “Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Sharon dead and ‘others to follow suit’,” Jan. 5, 2006 iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5166. This Iran Focus article is listed as the source of this quote in many places, including in this article (see hyperlink): atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html
8) BBC Monitoring International Reports, “Iranian President is Showing ‘Authenticity’ of Revolution- Senior Cleric,” excerpt from report by Iranian Mehr news agency, Jan. 5 2006
9) The MEK is listed as a terrorist organization in the US and the EU. For background on the MEK see:
aei.org/publications/pubID.23674,filter.all/pub_detail.asp , frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={3B4C70D2-4729-4816-AB29-4D65DFFE0EB1} , findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_5_54/ai_83591401 , csmonitor.com/2003/1231/p10s01-woiq.html , findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030701/ai_n12699162
(“In 1979, the MEK announced that, ‘After the Shah, it's America's turn.’ And that same day, MEK members took part in the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. U.S. hostages were held captive, with MEK help, for 444 days” and chronology of attacks in National Post article: iran-interlink.org/files/News/April04/NationalPost170404.htm), query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E4D6173DF930A25754C0A9659C8B63, iran-interlink.org/files/News4/Mar06/NewYorker060306.htm\ , iht.com/articles/2005/09/23/news/profile.php ,
www-personal.umich.edu/~rtanter/F03_PS498_Papers/MEK.htm
(HRW report and supporting article at: hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505/index.htm and guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1495712,00.html)
( For a personal account see 5 part special in the National Post: canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94a2aa55-56ab-4786-93a1-5f5ed073b98e&k=7636 , canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=775aac97-b88d-439e-8ad5-a0eaa7bbadec&p=1 , canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=eb5a4184-ebee-4e44-93ce-b9b8485efa33&k=51167&p=1 , canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=28105d48-5960-4dc9-bae9-3a2f0ea939d1&k=92036 , canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fd90eb7f-ccc9-4e70-b500-d9c993ddc3b2)
(In a background paper for UN speech to be given by Bush: “Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.”: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf)
(“An Iranian royalist acquaintance of mine, who did some jail time with members of the organization, describes them in two words: ‘Pol Pot.’ ‘They would have killed hundreds of thousands if they took over,’ he says. ‘Even more than the ayatollahs.’”: from Newsweek, see terror-watch.blogspot.com/)
(From an FBI report on the MEK given to Congress at the request of John McCain [Go to thomas.gov/ , click on Congressional Record, then on 103rd Congress, and search “MEK”. Results = “Supporting the Right Opposition Groups in Iran and Iraq”]
“MEK perpetrated bombings and assassinations, after the aborted maiden effort in 1971, resumed in 1972. The organization’s targets included US military advisors stationed in Iran. For example, the MEK claimed responsibility for the assassination of US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Lewis Hawkins in 1973, the assassination of US Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer in 1975, and the assassination of US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, also in 1975. The MEK also targeted US civilians associated with defense projects (five killed in 1976)…the MEK was also intimately involved in the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Eyewitnesses and MEK documents indicate that the MEK led the assault on the Embassy and then pleaded with Khomeini not to engage in dialogue with the United States government, nor release the American hostages seized during the action. In fact, Congressional testimony indicates that Rajavi insisted to Khomeini that there was much more to gain by holding the hostages than by releasing them.”)
“A front for the Mujahideen, the National Council of Resistance of Iran…” from The Economist, see nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0306nn/030613nn.htm
10) You can check it here: who.godaddy.com/WhoIsVerify.aspx?domain=iranfocus.com&prog_id=godaddy
11) wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=2143035
12) Hillingdon Times, “News analysis: Freedom fighter,” March 31, 2005 hillingdontimes.co.uk/news/waronterror/display.var.583972.0.news_analysis_freedom_fighter.php
13) AFP, “Experts warn that Iran's nuclear menace is real”, Sept.21, 2005
A copy is here: lebanonwire.com/0905/05092107AFP.asp
14) Company information in the UK can be obtained from ICC Directors database on Lexis Nexis: w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?167638 . If you want to check it, I think you can do so for a fee.
15) iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4604
16) Here are Jazayeri’s book reviews on Amazon: amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3D9MY0MK3E5Z5/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-1020660-8512838?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview
Mohammad Mohaddessin is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the NCRI (see ncr-iran.org/content/view/146/152/). The NCRI is equivalent to the MEK (see fas.org/irp/world/para/mek-usca070904.pdf) and is also listed as a terrorist organization. Jazayeri gives Mohaddesin’s book 5 stars. Ervand Abrahamian is the leading expert on the MEK, and is the main source used by the FBI and Congress (see note 9). Abrahamian gives an accurate portrayal of the MEK, which is that they are an extremist, terrorist, cult. Jazayeri gives Abrahamian’s book one star.
17) Laila Jazayeri is the Sole Director of a one-person company called AIW, Ltd., which is the Association of Anglo-Iranian Women. The address given for the registration of this company by Laila Jazayeri is the same address given by Mo Jazayeri for Iran Focus. This can be checked through the ICC database in Lexis Nexis (See note 14). I will not give the number for privacy reasons, but the address is on Colet Gardens Road in London. If these two people live in the same house and have the same last name, it is safe to assume that they are related. Laila is 23 years older than Mohammad, so she may be his mother.
18) Here are some examples, all of which are from either Maryam Rajavi’s website, or from the NCRI site, which is a front for the MEK (see note 16): maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/503/1/ , maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/505/1/ , ncr-iran.org/content/view/3087/152/ , ncr-iran.org/content/view/3993/128/ , ncr-iran.org/content/view/884/1/ , ncr-iran.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3163&Itemid=152 , ncr-iran.org/content/view/3568/152/ ,
19) findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030701/ai_n12699162
20) House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Opening Remarks for Hearing: ‘Understanding the Iran Crisis’,” Jan. 31, 2007 foreignaffairs.republicans.house.gov/apps/list/speech/foreignaffairs_rep/070131iran.shtml
21) For example: iranwatch.org/privateviews/IPC/perspex-ipc-whatmakestehrantick-050906.pdf
22) worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268
23) regimechangeiniran.com/2006/01/ahmadinejad-we-must-prepare-ou/
24) regimechangeiniran.com/2005/08/irans-suicide-operations-chief/
25) washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=284
26) From a statement by ILNA: “Iranian Labour News Agency - ILNA - is among the media that are critical [of the government] and reformist…The agency has never allowed itself any doubt in pointing out the mistakes of the rulers and criticizing their improper actions. Our record of critical comments on the former government politicians is a testament to that. Nevertheless, it is only natural that along the way we might have made some mistakes but any great enterprise entails big mistakes.” BBC Monitoring International Reports, May 3, 2007, Iranian Labour News Agency Dropped From Government News Conferences”
27) BBC quoting ILNA, “Iranian president comments on plans to ‘run the world’”, Jan. 6, 2006
28) BBC translation of speech on Iranian TV, Jan. 5, 2006, “Iranian President in Qom Repeats Views on Nuclear Issue, Palestine”
29) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “Iranian leader says Western protests won't stop nuclear programme” January 5, 2006, Dateline: Teheran
30) AFP, “Iran won't bow to nuclear 'bullies': Ahmadinejad” January 5, 2006 Thursday
A copy of this article is here: iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=39372&NewsKind=Current%2520Affairs
31) chicagotribune.com/news/bal-te.tehran06jan06,0,7266332.story??track=sto-relcon
32) Remarks on Departure From the White House, August 9th, 1974
See presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=4325
33) msnbc.msn.com/id/14912050/
34) Remarks at the 62nd Annual Session of the UN General Assembly, Sept.25, 2007, New York City
See transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/25/se.01.html
35) Agence France Presse, “Iran to Make Proposal on ‘How to Manage the World’”, Sept. 19, 2006
36) see note 34
37) time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535777-2,00.html
38) IRNA, “President urges nation to stand shoulder to shoulder with corrupt powers”, Dec. 20, 2006
irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0612209756110901.htm
39) see note 35
40) foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211057,00.html
41) see note 37
42) AP Worldstream, “Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says nuclear standoff resolvable by dialogue”, Sept. 14, 2006, by Edward Harris
See: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213730,00.html
43) Remarks at a Dinner for the Nation's Governors, Feb. 26th, 2006
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060226.html
44) Remarks Following a Roundtable Discussion on Retirement Savings and an Exchange With Reporters in Des Moines, Iowa, March 1st, 2002
45) Remarks to the American Farm Bureau Federation in Kansas City, Missouri
Jan. 13th, 1992
presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=20450&st=leader+of+the+world&st1=
46) Conversation With the President: Remarks in an Interview With Tom Brokaw of NBC News, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, Robert MacNell of the Public Broadcasting Service, and Barbara Walters of ABC News, Dec. 28th, 1977
presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7072
47) Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate, Oct. 11th, 2000 presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29419&st=leader+of+the+world&st1=
48) Speech of Vice President Nixon, Woodrow Wilson Park, Birmingham, AL, Aug. 26, 1960, see: jfklink.com/speeches/rmn/aug60/rmn260860_birmingham.html
49) Republican Party Platform of 1996, Aug. 12th, 1996 presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848&st=leader+of+the+world&st1=
50) See note 28

dave742 said:

"BBC Worldwide reports on everything. "

dave is setting up a circular catch-22 here. If it's not in the BBC, then it didn't happen.

There's no way to scientifically test this. Any story we can bring to try to test this will fail: example, that recent story of the Muslim father and son who beat up a homeless man in Brussels because the homeless man was drinking a beer in the street. If we use this story as a test, and it is found NOT to be in BBC Worldwide, then it must not have happened and the source JihadWatch used must have fabricated it. If that story is found in BBC Worldwide, then dave is proved right.

The proof of dave's assertion can only be proved by dave's assertion!

dave - you're an attorney, right? Only an attorney could concoct circulation reasoning like that.

Denver, you make an excellent point, as always!

DenverRodeo:
The story of Pakistans top cleric saying that he advocates the death penaly for apostasy is just a tiny bit more newsworthy than a homeless man getting beat up, wouldn't you say? Once again, you caught me in a little exaggeration. The BBC does indeed not report on everthing. I had a runny crap a while ago and had to wipe repeatedly, but I doubt the BBC will report it. Likewise, it is not surprising that there are no reports of a homeless man getting beat up outside of local newspapers. If a top cleric makes a major statement regarding the execution of those committing apostasy, the BBC would indeed report it. Please try to be serious.

DenverRodeo:
So let's look at a JihadWatch story that, unlike a homeless man getting beat up, you might expect to see in the news. JW had this story about Turkey's new army chief and what he said when he took office:

jihadwatch.org/archives/022452.php

The thread linked to this article at PressTV:

presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67858§ionid=351020204

In Lexis Nexis, you can read these stories about the same event by the BBC:

BBC Monitoring International Reports
August 28, 2008 Thursday
TURKISH COMMANDER PLEDGES TO FIGHT TERRORISM
Text of report in English by Turkish semi-official news agency Anatolia

BBC Monitoring International Reports
August 29, 2008 Friday
NEW TURKISH CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF TAKES OFFICE
Source: Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1736 gmt 28 Aug 08

You can also read about the story from newspapers in Turkish that have been translated by the BBC:

BBC Worldwide Monitoring
August 31, 2008 Sunday
Turkish paper views new military chief's assessment of relations with USA, EU
Text of report by Turkish newspaper Milliyet

BBC Monitoring International Reports
August 31, 2008 Sunday
PAPER PREDICTS TURKISH SUPPORT IN AFGHANISTAN UNDER NEW MILITARY CHIEF
Text of report by Turkish newspaper Radikal

When a story is real and newsworthy, the BBC will cover it.

Dave,

"Just step back and look at all of the facts in this case." -ethoman

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I think what the article boils down to is modernity, and Islam. When Robert linked the apostate story he was making a larger point, in my opinion. I think what is really illustrated here is the growing schism between what the west expects of the Islamic world in relation to human rights, and what the governments of the Islamic world can expect its citizens to allow. Look at the larger issue here. The apostate in question had to be saved by "subterfuge" (it was said he was mentally sick and therefore couldn’t be held accountable under any law for converting to Christianity). So, the calm imposed around whether or not he should be stoned to death wasn’t due to some enlightened understanding of human rights, but rather a deal made out of convenience in order to appease insane psychopathic Muslims. The question is how does the general public interpret "There is no compulsion in religion."? I know the answer, and it isn't PC version we'd all love to believe in. Unfortunately it seems the Islamic world feels like they are being forced to swallow a lie as well. In short, you'd have us believe the apostate link is some sort of, "international conspiracy [code for "Crusader-Zionist Alliance"] against Islam and Pakistan" right? You are quite the artful dodger I must say, you did quite effectively change the point here. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm We could go on about the great implications of this story as well if you’d like.

Still Dave offers no proof that the Cleric did not make the statement. If he had not made the statement, isn't it highly likely that he would have himself later not only refuted the story in the Pakistan Daily Times, but also sought legal redress for their misrepresentation of him? Offering the argument that A) The BBC reports everything and B) Since the BBC didn't report it it must not have happened is a rather huge inductive leap, to the point of appearing downright disingenuous.

dave,

"If a top cleric makes a major statement regarding the execution of those committing apostasy, the BBC would indeed report it."

The BBC might not think it's all that important. What makes a story important is subjective, not a science. That story might just be an example of local theological opinions of some regional cleric talking about some peripheral theological point that is not directly related to the main story, so big deal.

Then there's the PC bias of the BBC. Seeing the story on their news feed, they have to decide to run it or not. Not only is importance a factor, but avoiding stories that put Muslims in a bad light -- is that a factor too? I think the question is fair, because most mainstream stories about Muslims doing and saying bad things never mention the words "Muslim" or "Islam". Like those stories of Muslims rioting in Paris and the Netherlands -- not a single Muslim in sight, just "youths"! Muslims committing horrible crimes in England, like a father and his brother stomping on his daughter and strangling her to death in an honor crime -- no mention of "Muslim" or "Islam".
http://www.bendweekly.com/Worldwide-News/8438.html Examples abound like this. Indicates a bias.

"If Rehman never said this about apostasy, there is nothing left in the thread to comment about."

Not true. His comments on the link between Islam and terrorism stand alone. I see that you did not claim that the current comment source was fabricated.

The measly links you provided did not substantiate your accusations one iota.

The Ahmadinejad, love-fest, cut and paste nightmare was unreadable. Just provide the link to where you cut and pasted it from next time please.

You can scream about the BBC all you want, but you cannot prove them to be the only reliable source of information.

Personally, the BBC is trash in my opinion, like any other MSM news source. White-washing galore.

I must correct a mistake here: "When Robert linked the apostate". "This should read "When Raymond linked the apostate".

dave,

You're a boring little spammer.

quote: Chairman Ruet-e-Hilal Committee Mufti Munib-ur-Rehman, Pakistani mufti

Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and linking terrorism with it is not justified,...

They, like other primitive peoples, think the power of their words is greater than the reality behind what actually is true, in a kind of magic worship of words. But is this not a form of witchcraft, a serious no-no in Islam? The Islamic authors of perpetual mischief, and then claimants of persecution as victims, fits the mold of Islam's inverted logic where everything true and real is of the devil, but all evil things by Muslim true believers is from their god Allah. They know this with certainty, because their 'prophet' in his delirious moments of madness expressed them as 'words' which must be obeyed in total submission. No wonder the Muslim world is so upside down mad. They are basically inherently insane!

No, the Muslim mind is NOT predisposed to compassion and brotherhood, but rather the other way around, towards mayhem and violence, just like their warlord caravan raiding founder lustful Mohammet.

ethoman:
I'm still not quite understanding your point. Abdorrahman was brought up on charges of apostacy. Some wanted to put him to death, some did not. The Ulema Council, for example, wanted to put him to death. (1) I realize that many Muslims have opinions that I think are insane. So do Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. In the end, even in Afghanistan, he was not put to death. My point was simply that Rehman did not call for the execution.

1) BBC Worldwide Monitoring
March 26, 2006 Sunday
Afghan cleric demands death penalty for Christian convert

Abu Allah:
"Still Dave offers no proof that the Cleric did not make the statement."

Yes, prove a negative. Good one. FYI, it's not just the BBC. Lexis Nexis has thousands of news sources in its database. None of them reported the story.

awake:
"His comments on the link between Islam and terrorism stand alone." -awake

I assume you are talking about this from Rehman:
“I am not ready to admit that our religion Islam has any link with terrorism. We have been seeing suicide attacks in some non-muslim countries in past.”

I did comment on that above. The comment starts out "this is very true..." See above.

"I see that you did not claim that the current comment source was fabricated." -awake.

The source looks reasonable. It's much more believable than the Pakistan Daily Times article for many reasons. First, the story in the Pak Daily Times of the top cleric in Pakistan recommending the death penalty for apostasy is a very big story, and simply would have been covered by other news outlets. The story of Rehman saying that linking Islam with terrorism is unjustified is simply not a big deal, and it makes sense that it is just a blurb in a news wire story. Also, once you have some experience with this, you realize that news sources typically put their BS stories in the commentary or opinion section. This is what the Washington Times did in the stories I talked about above. This becomes even more suspicious when the commentary does not even have an author.

"The measly links you provided did not substantiate your accusations one iota."
Let's say the unauthored story in the commentary section of the Pak Daily Times was about a US soldier who raped a Muslim woman, but the story did not appear anywhere else in the world, and someone showed this in the same way I did. In that case, I think you would have no problem dismissing the story as BS.

"The Ahmadinejad, love-fest, cut and paste nightmare was unreadable. Just provide the link to where you cut and pasted it from next time please." -awake

Do a google search on any 5 word section of the stories I detailed. They do not appear anywhere else. They are brand new, and there is no link to provide. I did provide links when referring to previous material.

"You can scream about the BBC all you want, but you cannot prove them to be the only reliable source of information." -awake
Once again, it is not just the BBC. Lexis Nexis is a database of thousands of news sources.

"Personally, the BBC is trash in my opinion, like any other MSM news source." -awake
I know. You only can trust JW.

Dave742 Having not been part of this debate I have a question for you nevertheless. What is your point? I really want to know if you have one and what it is. If you are trying to say that part of the article, or a link to it, above was fabricated, what did you hope to gain by making that accusation (which was easily proved a baseless accusation)? Were you just trying to get attention so that you could launch your lesson in Jesus VS Mohammed? London hanged children in past? What the hell does that have to do with a modern day murderous mufti? You are not communicating with people who need a history lesson from you. You are not communicating with people who want an islamic sermon from you, because that's basically what you ended up writing. From now on I'm reading your closing "peace" before I have to suffer through your sermon.

PEACE to you too

Dave perhaps I was being too elusive. I thought the artful dodger thing was a pretty big hint. The Pakistani Mufti artfully dodges the question. Is terrorism allowed in the Quran? Here is how he dodges the question.

Mufti:
"Islam does not allow anybody to take lives of innocent people by any means."

This infidel wonders if there is a deeper meaning to the word ‘innocent’?

The Holy Quran declares: “Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.“ (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.”

But it is not unequivocal at all, because the verse that is quoted here contains another, absolutely crucial phrase which has been left out.

"That was why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind. ‘Our apostles brought them veritable proofs; yet many among them, even after that, did prodigious evil in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land." (Sura 5:31)

In other words, where there is ‘villainy’ killing is expressly permitted; and since villainy can mean anything, and since Islamists regard western or democratic influence as villainous, it follows that the slaughter of western or reformist Muslims, or apostates is expressly permitted – because they are not regarded as innocent in the first place.

Instead of telling us the truth about Islam and terrorism he gives us a one liner, and then artfully dodges the fact that there have been over 10,000 terror related acts in the name of Islam since 9/11. When he says, "We have been seeing suicide attacks in some non-muslim countries in past,”. To suppose that he can just simply explain away over 10,000 acts of violence with this relativistic model we are to swallow is crazy. It now becomes the "famous" just a few whackos argument. I pose that any other faith,other than Islam, on the planet can explain away any and all suicide attacks based on scriptural contexts, and number of attacks, because you would have to be able to point to an attack, prove the faith, then document then scriptural context of the violence. At the end of that you would be left with maybe a handfull, which is hardly an indictment.

Then he goes on to say, "Some external forces are funding, training and motivating the anti-social elements in Pakistan to achieve their nefarious designs." Again some more artful dodging. He expects us to believe that some mysterious "force", other than Islamic scripture, and tradition is driving the lunacy in Pakistan. I would refer you to exhibit A:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/751803.stm

General Musharraf attempts to begin a process to do away with Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws. What happens? The people of Pakistan stop the measure. This is not indicative of some mysterious outside force other than the Quran driving the insanity in Pakistan.

In the end it doesn’t even matter what the Mufti said or didn’t say. There is such a growing schism between the government, and its people at this point, does it even matter? If you want my opinion, I think he did say it. I think the quotation had to be heavily paraphrased due to translation, and because he probably used the same artfully dodgy rhetoric I’ve already proven he likes to use. Comprende??

dave,
You're a boring little spammer.
Posted by: Abscedere

Yep...The Dave Show...Does he really expect anyone to stay with him through all that leeeeeengthy stuff?

I don't know, and don't care if he is right or not...that super long stuff is an infringement on JW bandwidth, and is exactly what Abscedere above called it...spamming....

charlie:
My only purpose is to point out fallacies in these posts. I point out things that are untrue, and then the discussion flows from that point. To be honest, unlike many of the sites I visit, most of the threads here are legitimate. That's mainly because this site tends to focus on inconsequential issues. If you're actually going to write a thread about a homeless man who gets beaten up for a stupid reason, that's fine, but it's merely propaganda. I can write truthful stories all day to Nazis about insane things that settlers do to Palestinians, but that would be nothing more than inciting hatred. Yes, people everywhere do bad things. There are 1.3 billion Muslims. You can write stories all day about bad things that individual Muslims do.
Anyway, usually I can show that a specific story is untrue by quoting another story that shows what really happened, and this usually works to the point where nobody challenges me, because they understand the deception that is being used. This is the first thread where I tried to show how things are fabricated by showing how it is omitted everywhere else. This is more difficult to do when dealing with a severely biased population. Regardless, I am satisfied by the amount of mental squirming that was required to ignore my posts that I still made my point.
This is all experimental for me. I realize your minds are shut tight as a drum and unable to absorb anything contrary to your worldview. My wife is a social psychologist, and I enjoy knocking on the steel traps in your minds to see what happens. It's a good source of conversation for my wife and I.

ethoman:
"'We have been seeing suicide attacks in some non-muslim countries in past,'. To suppose that he can just simply explain away over 10,000 acts of violence..."

He mentioned suicide attacks. You equate suicide attacks with "acts of violence." I need to know what your definition of "act of violence" is for you to give it a 1:1 relationship with "suicide bombing". I don't know where your figure of 10,000 comes from regarding "acts of violence," but did whoever came up with this number use the same methodology in a controlled experiment and measure "acts of violence" from other groups? What was the methodology that was used? Who were the researchers that ran the experiment? What University or organization ran this experiment? What other groups were studied? What were the dependent and independent variables? What definitions were used?
Anyway, this research has been done regarding suicide bombing, which is what Rehman referred to. What was found is what I said. There is no correlation between suicide bombing and Islam, but there is a very strong correlation between suicide bombing and occupation. Most suicide bombers are secular. You are free to challenge me on this, but you will look as silly as those who tried on the link I showed above.

"Dave742 - What is your point? I really want to know if you have one and what it is."

posted by: charlie

Dave is a game player, charlie. I asked him the same type of question earlier, but he chose not to reply, so don't be surprised if he ignores your question as well; and I don't think that even dave knows what his purpose is here, other than to play games.

At times he seems serious, but then he'll turn around and throw you a curve ball as if to say "gotcha". The guy is a crazy-maker, and he amuses himself by toying with us by giving us either vague or rhetorical questions. I really don't think he wants to engage in intelligent dialogue, but he simply gets his jollies out of sounding like he's making a point - when he knows he isn't making a point - does that make sense? Jeez, I pity his poor wife & children, if he has any. Lord have mercy on them. :-D

"My wife is a social psychologist"

posted by: dave742

Well, she would have to be to survive conversations with you. Poor woman. What, were you one of her patients, LOL!

...I meant to state rhetorical "answers"...not questions...

Dave

You can stop playing stupid anytime now.

methods used to compile this list of "violent acts" can be found at.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

One Sura used to justify suicide attacks.

Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Attacks to date:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

You'll note that some of the attacks can be connected with war zones, but how would you explain all of the attacks in the Phillipines, or, Thailand, India, or Bangladesh? Seems there is a common theme here.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. You can write stories all day about bad things that individual Muslims do. Posted by Dave

Dave simply cannot, will not, god forbid, make the connection between Islamic scriptural texts and examples of their 'perfect man' Mohammet with the followers, the true believers, those 1.3 billion who either are true believers, or some of them fell out from true belief, to act out their 10,000 evil acts against humanity (since 9/11 alone! & millions before that for centuries) based on those texts and examples of their to be emulated big man. He cannot make those connections because the synopsis in his brain are not connected to make those connections. It is part of the total brainwashing of Islamic minds that they believe blindly, in full submission, that they are always in the right and we in the wrong. They simply cannot see it, anymore than an army of zombies can see themselves being pitched to their doom. That is the sad part of Islam, that its adherents, those true adherents, those "individual Muslims" do because of this cerebral failure they suffer. Unless they leave that evil cult, there is no hope of them ever understanding, which is why I speak in the third person rather than to Dave. To speak directly, he would have to be a real individual human being, not just another Muslim parrot.

Sorry mate. But you bring this onto yourself, being being stone deaf and dumb. You are wasting our time here.

"My wife is a social psychologist, and I enjoy knocking on the steel traps in your minds to see what happens. It's a good source of conversation for my wife and I."

So basically you are admitting that you're a troll. I'm glad we got that out of the way. I suppose that would explain why you never explained why the Cleric failed to refute the story in the Pakistan Daily Times, if said story did in fact misrepresent him. I never asked you to "prove a negative." All you would need to do is provide any evidence of refutation of the story by the Cleric or his staff, which seems quite reasonable, had there really been any controversy about the story. Instead, you simply assert that the story can't be found on the BBC or Lexis Nexis, and ergo must be untrue. Classic logical fallacy.

ethoman:
You show me a unverifiable list without a reference in site. Your list is a joke to anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence.

"why the Cleric failed to refute the story" -abu allah

I think I saw on the cover of the National Enquirer that Katie Holmes is an alien. Unless you can find me a statement from Katie that refutes the allegation, I will use your logic and assume that she is indeed an alien.

His statements are shocking & dangerous. Good riddance.

Posted by: champ at October 2, 2008 1:21 PM

Hi champ,
Bush was always dangerous for Americans. Look at his background of fiancial blunders, followed by bail-outs by Al-Sauds, adoption of Al-Sauds in Bush family.
Bush family reeks with corruption, oil, politics and financial blunders. There as been enough proof fore those interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qBtOGnAAo How could Americans appoint a spoilt, failed Bush to the highest / post powerful position in the world and not expect compromises in the nations's sensitive issues like national security http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BryZokrUk5s and economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowq9vm412U ?
Reality is, Bush has served his Saudi masters, after lying America into voting for him. It is not surprising, certainly not shocking, that Bush took nation to a war against Al-Saud's enemy, at the cost of American tax-dollars, blood and lives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW9HPNBkppo .
Many, including your's truly, believe Bush should be held accountable by Americans. This is the American thing to do.

ethoman:
I looked up an entry from your impressive list. On 29 December 2006, your website says that a "religious leader [was] murdered by Islamists." The first two entries I tried looking up had no reports anywhere in the worldwide media, as usual. This one, however, was reported. Wow!
Here are the reports of the incident:

"Urgent news just in from the North Caucasus. An imam of one of Makhachkala's mosques has been killed in the Dagestani capital, Interfax news agency just reported quoting the Makhachkala Interior directorate as saying. Imam Magomed Saidmagomedov was found in his mosque in Abrikosovaya Street in the morning. He was killed after a morning prayer. Gun wounds were discovered on the imam's body."
BBC Monitoring International Reports
December 29, 2006 Friday
IMAM KILLED IN MOSQUE IN RUSSIA'S DAGESTAN
Text of report by Russian Ekho Moskvy radio

So the Imam was killed. No report of who did it.

Here's another report:

"Unidentified gunmen shot to death a neighborhood mosque mullah in Makhachkala on Friday morning. The mullah, Magomed Saidmagomedov, was gunned down in Abrikosovaya Street, the press service of the city police department told Itar-Tass."
TASS
December 29, 2006 Friday 04:49 AM EST
Muslim cleric killed in Makhachkala - adds
BYLINE: Yuri Safronov

This report says who shot the mullah. It was "unidentified gunmen." Unidentified? Your website seems to know who did it. It was the "Islamists" that did it! Now I understand.

Here's another report:

"Updated police reports said the Muslim cleric killed by unidentified gunmen on Friday morning was mullah's aide. Police identified the victim as Magomed Saidmagomedov, 27."
TASS
December 29, 2006 Friday 06:13 AM EST
Mullah's aide gunned down in Makhachkala
BYLINE: Yuri Safronov

So it was not the mullah that was shot at all, but his aide. So when your website says that a "religious leader" was killed, that is not really true, is it. Once again, the gunmen were classified as "unidentified," not "Islamists." So, in reality, the incident could just as easily have been a hate crime against a Muslim by a Christian as anything else.

The incident was never reported on again.
I have now done more research on one of their incidents than they did for all 10,000.

YOUR WEBSITE IS A JOKE.

Bush was always dangerous for Americans. Look at his background of fiancial blunders, followed by bail-outs by Al-Sauds, adoption of Al-Sauds in Bush family.
Bush family reeks with corruption, oil, politics and financial blunders

Alert

You are right. He is stupid, and thinks corruption is normal. He was brought up in it. What is the old saying...Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely. I am going to keep a tally on who votes for this $1 Trillion Wall Street bailout turkey (which does nothing to fix the real problem). The corrupt ones will all vote for it.

Dave

LOL

Ok you can have that one, although the case was probably intersectarian in nature. 11988 you have a lot of work to do.

Dave.

Ok you can have that one, although the case was probably intersectarian in nature. 11988 you have a lot of work to do.

ethoman:
Devastating rebuttal.

I think I know what might have happened with the incident I mentioned. First of all, the "the religion of peace" website is registered to "domains by proxy," which is a way to get a completely anonymous website:

domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx

There is no way to know anything at all about anyone who is connected with this site. However, it is clearly a top-notch research organization, and I think I know what may have happened. Even though the incident I mentioned was carried out by "unidentified gunmen," probably what happened is the "religion of peace" website sent some of their CSI researchers to Makhachkala to investigate the incident. Doing their best CSI work, they discovered who the gunmen actually were, and lo and behold, it was the "Islamists"! The results of their crack investigation was not reported by the media there, because they were embarrassed that they could not find out who was responsible, but those damned "religion of peace" researchers did.
That must be what happened.

ethoman:
Your website says that on 5 Dec 2007 "a police officer is gunned down by Muslim militants." Here are the reports:

"A police officer was killed in the village of Stary Cherek of the Kabardino- Balkaria's Urvansky district on Wednesday evening, a source with law enforcement agencies in the Urvansky district told Interfax. A group of unidentified people came to the house of the police captain in a car without plates, called him out and opened fire on him."
Russia & CIS Military Newswire
December 6, 2007 Thursday 1:46 PM MSK
Police officer killed in Kabardino-Balkaria

And another:

"A police officer in the Russian North Caucasus republic of Kabardino-Balkaria has been gunned down on his way home from work, a police source said on Thursday. The attack on the police officer occurred at about 10:00 p.m. Moscow time (7:00 p.m. GMT) on Wednesday in the village of Stary Cherek, where an unknown gunman came up to the officer, who was returning home after work, and fired into his chest, a source said."
RIA Novosti
December 6, 2007
Police officer killed in Russian N.Caucasus republic

Another example of those impressive researchers at the "religion of peace" website travelling to Russia to discover that the "unknown gunman" was really "Muslim militants".

I think I will start a website called "crazy-ass Christians," and compile a list of people killed by Christian freaks. I will use the same list as the "religion of peace" website, but will merely blame all these killings by "unknown gunmen" on Christians!

Yes, I exaggerated when I said "every story". I should have said "why does it seem like...". There are many incidents like what I brought up here, but I usually don't have time to detail them. IMO, your worldview is built on hundreds of stories similar to this of dubious credibility. I think your worldview is built on a house of cards, which is dangerous when you are advocating wars, possibly nuclear wars, based upon this worldview.

Posted by: dave742 at October 2, 2008 2:18 PM

Why would anybody continue to engage 'ol Davey after that offering yesterday?

awake:
"Why would anybody continue to engage 'ol Davey after that offering yesterday?" -awake

You engaged me twice after that. Why don't you ask yourself.

ethoman:
The only reason I am not posting anything further from your "religion of peace" list is that I have now tried to locate at least 20 different incidents from that list in the countries you mentioned. I cannot find one in Lexis Nexis. That majority of incidents on that list outside of war zones are complete fabrications.

I think your worldview is built on a house of cards, which is dangerous when you are advocating wars, possibly nuclear wars, based upon this worldview.

Posted by: dave742

Interesting choice of words: "house of cards", as it reminds me of the Twin Towers, and it also reminds me who was responsible for destroying them. The "danger" is in ignoring the threat that Islam & company poses.

You are airing your views to the wrong crowd, so why not put your concerns before General Patraeus, as I'm certain that he would strongly disagree with your "worldview", but I'm sure that he could use a good laugh.

Champ:
"it reminds me of the Twin Towers"

I bet that you're reminded of the twin towers when you look at a puppy.

"The "danger" is in ignoring the threat that Islam & company poses."

3,000 people died on 9/11. 22,000 people die every year from not having health insurance. That's 154,000 people since 9/11. Do you ever think of those people?

Dave,

In a way this reminds me of the philosophical debate around, “The tree that falls in the forest makes doesn’t produce noise unless it is heard and observed”. I guess the whole process of trying to track down this stuff is sort of like walking through a forest after a microburst, cataloging all of the felled trees, then looking for eye/ear witnesses. Out of 11,000 downed trees you find 12 witnesses, of those twelve 3 were drunk, 2 have to be dismissed because they weren’t wearing a watch, or didn’t know what day it was. So out of 11,000 felled trees, we could only verify that 7 actually made a noise when it fell, and are left to presume 10993 fell silently.

Dave,

In a way this reminds me of the philosophical debate around, “The tree that falls in the forest doesn’t produce noise unless it is heard and observed”. I guess the whole process of trying to track down this stuff is sort of like walking through a forest after a microburst, cataloging all of the felled trees, then looking for eye/ear witnesses. Out of 12,000 downed trees you find 12 witnesses, of those twelve 3 were drunk, 2 have to be dismissed because they weren’t wearing a watch, or didn’t know what day it was. So out of 12,000 felled trees, we could only verify that 7 actually made a noise when it fell, and are left to presume 11993 fell silently. We could go though all 12000 of these, but it doesn't change anything, in my humble opinion.

CHEESY COMMENT ALERT:

3,000 people died on 9/11. 22,000 people die every year from not having health insurance. That's 154,000 people since 9/11. Do you ever think of those people?

Posted by: dave742

Not even the cheesiest politician would make a comparison like that in an effort to persuade change along the lines of health care; and I dare you to make that tacky statement to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11.

Katie Holmes does not need to rebut the National Enquirer cover, because a) the claim was ridiculous, and b) no one takes it seriously.
If that is your level of argument, then I am done with you, except for one suggestion:

"I think I will start a website called "crazy-ass Christians," and compile a list of people killed by Christian freaks."

What the fuck are you waiting for? Given the fact that there are 2 billion Christians on this planet, and that 'Their Religion Is Just As Violent As Islam,' you should have no problems compiling daily reports of Christian suicide bombers wreaking havoc in order to defend offenses against Jesus. Why not do one for Buddhists while you're at it. After all, all religions are just as prone to violence.

champ:
"I dare you to make that tacky statement to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11."

I don't understand. If I make the comment to someone who lost a family member on 9/11, you are saying they would take offense to it? Why? A person who looses a family member because the don't have insurance has not suffered as big of a loss? That's ridiculous. Losing a family member because they don't have insurance when you live in the richest nation in the world is just as tragic as losing a family member on 9/11. If my wife died because she didn't have insurance, I wouldn't feel any better about it than had she lost her life on 9/11. But I realize that for whatever reason 9/11 has some cosmic significance to many people.

I don't understand. If I make the comment to someone who lost a family member on 9/11, you are saying they would take offense to it? Why? A person who looses a family member because the don't have insurance has not suffered as big of a loss? That's ridiculous.
Posted by: dave742

Dying because you had been viciously attacked is not comparable to dying from health related issues, regardless of insurance or doctor's best efforts. When men and women were jumping of the WTC towers, they may have had health insurance, but it is not in any way comparable to saying their deaths were a loss from dying because of disease. The two are glaringly different: one is to die by vicious attack, the other from causes beyond our control. Can you tell which is which?

Death comes to us all, but how you lived, whether slave or free, and how you died, whether from disease or killed by attackers, is what defines a natural death from a man made death. The Islamic jihadists who flew jet planes with live people in them were not taking census of whether all aboard had health or life insurance, did they? They killed them in cold blood, same as they killed the victims in the towers. The fact that these elementary things must be explained to you, Dave, shows what a callous individual you must be, destitute of basic humanity. Can this be your Islam showing? Or are you just criminally autistic? Or a fool cold blooded reptile who thinks killing a victim is the same as that victim dying of natural causes? I vote for criminal-autistic-narcissism without any human compassion, just like your Cult’s founder Mohammet.

The tragedy is you probably don’t understand any of this... Do you? How did you lose your humanity?

Dave

I thought that silly rebuttal I made this morning was pretty good, because when you started to nit pick I lost 1 attack, but stopped using round numbers, then gained almost 2,000. I thought it was funny you obviously didn't get it. In that context it was devastating.

Battle of tours:
"one is to die by vicious attack, the other from causes beyond our control"

It is you that does not understand. People without insurance don't have to die. They simply need medical care. Giving people medical care is not beyond our control, it is a matter of greed. We have 700 billion to bail out rich people when their greed runs amuck, but we don't have a tiny fraction of that to save tens of thousand of lives. It's beyond ironic to hear you imbeciles talk about humanity. The three thousand lives lost on 9/11 are the only lives that matter. The million-plus lives lost in Iraq since the war started don't matter. The half million Iraqi lives lost in the 90's due to sanctions don't matter. You guys are real humanitarians.

Great answer, Battle_of_Tours!!

Thank you, Battle_of_Tours, as you completely understood where I'm coming from with regards to dave's callous comparison of those who died during 9/11, to those who die from a lack of health care, and I agree with your answer to him word for word.

Dave claims to be an "ex Catholic", but I'm beginning to believe that that's a lie, and that he is in fact a Muslim. Big surprise there, huh?

Champ,

I wonder if any insurance companies carry manifestos like these against their customers?

Manifestos left September 11th Attackers:

"We killed them outside their land, praise be to Allah. Today, we kill them in the midst of their own home.

O Allah, revive an entire nation by our deaths. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr.

To the Garden of Eden, our first house. We shall meet in the eternal Paradise with the prophets, honest people, martyrs and righteous people. They are the best of companions. Praise be to Allah. Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you. "

Ahmad al-Haznawi, Flight 93 Hijacker

"Those 19 brothers who left us made efforts and offered their lives for the cause of Allah. Allah has favored them with this conquest, which we are enjoying now"

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's Number Two, explaining the motives for the plot.

"Be cheerful, for you have only moments between you and your eternity, after which a happy and satisfying life begins...

"Remember: it is a raid for the sake of Allah. Recite the prayer. As you take the seat, recite the prayer. Mention Allah a lot. When the hijacking begins, "Shout Allah is great because this shout strikes terrors in the hearts of the infidels

"And the moment of death should be accompanied by the basic statement of belief recited by all Muslims at the call to prayer. Seconds before the target, your last words should be, 'there is no god but Allah. Mohammed is his messenger!."

Written instructions to the hijackers.

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

Last words from the cockpit of Flight 93.

"Dave claims to be an "ex Catholic", but I'm beginning to believe that that's a lie, and that he is in fact a Muslim. Big surprise there, huh?"

Yup Dave does appear to have an acute case of cerebral Islamologic.

champ:
"but I'm beginning to believe that that's a lie, and that he is in fact a Muslim"

It is so hilarious to me that you think I must be a Muslim to have the positions I do. As I said before, the difference is that I have intelligence and empathy. In-group/out-group psychology does not control my worldview. I pointed out previously how my wife and I spouse-swap, which I doubt is typical of Muslims. I'll help you out another way. Allah; blow me! I don't think a Muslim would type that without thinking he's going to hell. While we're at it, Jesus, Yahweh, and Shiva can kiss my ass as well.

Battle of tours:
"one is to die by vicious attack, the other from causes beyond our control"

It is you that does not understand. People without insurance don't have to die. They simply need medical care.
Posted by: dave742

I did not expect you to understand, no matter your religion or lack thereof. Your callousness speaks it all. What a waste of a human being. When did it hit you that you have no soul? Or did it? Your comparison is odious.

Hi, Ethoman -

That was good! To a compare a tragedy like 9/11, or any other terror attack, to that of someone's ability or inability to acquire health insurance is beyond ridiculous - it's just plain stupid, not to mention heartless.

dave, you and your wife spouse-swap? Well, isn't that special. Why bother being married? Anyway, I'm glad you revealed that about yourself, because remember, Muslim men have been known to have numerous wives, so perhaps it indicates that you're a closet Muslim, LOL!

And allah would just LOVE to blow you - blow you up that is! Yep, perhaps you are in denial about being a Muslim, and you are more of one than even YOU realize.

Ethoman,

I have tried looking up the "manifestos" you posted and they do not appear on Lexis Nexis, so I'm sure they do not exist. It is Friday night and my wife is out on the town, as usual, so I will have to check Lexis Nexis to she if it knows where she is. If I don't find her on there maybe she doesn't exist? Anyways back to pullin' my pud waiting for wifey to get back.

....and dave, don't be talkin' smack about allah so quickly, because he has just the sort of heaven I believe you are looking for. Think about it, you too could have 72 virgins if you just submit to allah; especially since Jesus and Yahweh are of no interest to you, so you may want to reconsider allahs generous offer. Just a thought.

champ:
"Think about it, you too could have 72 virgins if you just submit to allah"

No thanks. I get plenty of women in this life. I usually don't even have to look fo them, because my wife finds plenty for the both of us. We enjoy them together. They're not virgins, but I prefer experienced women anyway.

dave741:
"and my wife is out on the town, as usual"

Actually, she's at an academic conference. PhD's go to these often. I am sure you don't know about that. We don't have sex with other people unless we're together. Your little joke was really not funny enough for you to go through the trouble of registering under another name. Don't quit your day job, funny man.

I don't know, dave, sounds like you would fit right in with the Islamic crowd; especially since you are a sexual pervert, Muhammad was a sexual pervert, and allah is too. Yeah, Islam has all a guy like you are searching for. Hard to believe that you would take a pass on Sex Heaven so quickly. Sleep on it, there's always tomorrow.

Since the USA does not allocate health care insurance for all of its children it commits acts of terror on small people all over America every second of every day. By not insuring all of its children America kills more innocent children than any so called jihadists. America is the biggest terrorist in the world, any so called jihadists have hardly done more to damage America than by Americans upon its own innocent uninsured children. Obama 08 save the children death to America peace to jihad.

The United States of America should abdicate its statehood to the U.N. Only the general assembly has the wisdom to master global affairs. The United States hates all woman, and children, and even wants little kids to starve to death! It believes in racism, and slavery! The United States is the greatest terror state on the earth!

Dave741 - nice parody on dave742, LOL!!!

"We don't have sex with other people unless we're together."

No one gives a rats ass - spare us the details of your whoremongering.

Only the general assembly has the wisdom to master global affairs. The United States hates all woman, and children, and even wants little kids to starve to death! It believes in racism, and slavery! - Dave741

"Cookoo cookoo.." This is one sick puppy, must be writing from an insane asylum, even too far gone for a Muslim jihadi. A true slave to his own lies, like Mohammet's lies about the pagan moon god Allah. Pathetic creature in his dribbling insanity would then cast dispersions on the people of a free nation. The man is delirious.

Battle_of_Tours - Dave741 is poking fun at dave742. I know their monikers 'look' similar, but they are two different posters. He isn't serious, but he's doing a parody on the real idiot; and maybe you knew that, perhaps the joke is on me. :-D

to 742

Perhaps you don't realize real men out there are actually giving their lives for your right to fornicate at will. You know the whole wheat and chaff thing ... spoken by one you probably hate worse than any jihadist! Yet you sit here and mock! Well I mock back. Screw you, you bastard try your crap in the middle east and see how it goes over! Bitch.

He isn't serious, but he's doing a parody on the real idiot; and maybe you knew that, perhaps the joke is on me. :-D
Posted by: champ

Good job too! :)

I love parodies of the insane running the asylum, where the real idiot looks smart. Very funny.

Dave741 ROCKS!!!

....but

dave742 SUCKS!!!

Hi, Battle_of_Tours!

Dave741 deserves a high-five for his excellent spoof on ole dave742, because that was great! But he's also right to be pissed off at this guy, because 742 doesn't deserve to enjoy our blood bought freedoms. In fact, he ought to buy a one way ticket to the ME and spread his STD's over there. We don't need scum like him spreading his diseases and dangerous opinions among freedom loving Americans. Bye, 742, enjoy your life as an allah lover, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Well perhaps I've consumed too much gin and tonic tonight, with a squeeze of lime? All I have to say is women pleural or singular woman? ... 742 you are a leach sucking the will of a righteous people. So, in the words of the great Winston Churchill, "You are drunk. (Me) reply (modified), but I shall be sober tomorrow." (Modified), unfortunately you shall still be ugly.” So, good evening and good night.

champ:
"No one gives a rats ass"

I have the right to respond when confronted, even if you don't care. BTW, having sex with 2 women at the same time is awesome. So deliciously evil...

dave - you are revolting. I have to wonder if your sexual conquests would appreciate reading how "deliciously evil" they are for you to be with them. I dare you to tell them, pathetic loser.

Dave,

"The only reason I am not posting anything further from your "religion of peace" list is that I have now tried to locate at least 20 different incidents from that list in the countries you mentioned. I cannot find one in Lexis Nexis. That majority of incidents on that list outside of war zones are complete fabrications."

I have done some research of my own on that list and was able to verify many of the attacks listed there. Some were only reported on foreign news agencies. Anyways your whole argument hinged upon that site, which is why you so desperately needed to disavow its authenticity, but it is real, so you loose.

Like this entry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4570912.stm

12/31/2005 Indonesia Sulawesi 8 45 Eight Christians are killed when Islamists bomb a market selling pork at a time when it is packed with shoppers. The bomb was packed with nails.

I can find many of these. Checkmate.

By the way "loose" wasn't a typeo. We'll just call it the pun of the day. In case, again, you didn't get it.

Man, you guys are a-holes. Sites like this make it so much easier to imagine how normal Turks, Germans and Bosnians could participate in genocidal wars. Good for you!

General observation, ladies and gentlemen (I address particularly anyone new to this site, who may have found the twists and turns of the 'conversation', bewildering).

There has been a major attempt in this thread, by our Mohammedan Disruptor (probably Iranian) to impugn the truthfulness of this site - and, by implication, Mr Spencer's ethics and powers of discernment - and to throw dust in our eyes as regards the Pakistani cleric and the teachings and practice of Islam.

There is a very different posting, of course, by 'dhakair', which doesn't even bother to try to argue with us: it simply hurls an insult. At least 'dhakair' is brief! - whereas 'Dave' goes on forever.

All this activity argues that the Mohammedans who eavesdrop here do NOT want us kafir focusing on the direct connection, visible to anyone with a gram of commonsense, between the explicit teachings of Islam, and acts of atrocious violence by self-definedly pious Muslims, carried out against non-Muslims or against Muslims deemed insufficiently Islamic.

The efforts of 'dave', who despite his over-the-top attempts to pose as a western liberal libertine, has 'Mohammedan' (and, probably, Iranian agent) written all over him in capital letters, are especially interesting.

Oh, and I do like his touching trust in the veracity and evenhandedness of the BBC's international news coverage. I'm afraid that I have read one too many deadly dissertations by Mr Hugh Fitzgerald, on the subject of the infiltration of the BBC World Service by what one might call the Islamintern, to be quite as trusting as 'dave' professes to be.

Final word: I urge anyone who is new here, who is not a Muslim, to obtain, and read, as soon as possible, a book by psychologist M Scott Peck, entitled 'People of the Lie'. There is much in that book which throws light both on Islam as an ideology, and on the behaviour of a great many Mohammedans, even though Peck himself did not have Islam in mind, at all, when he wrote it. (The passages on 'newspeak' in George Orwell's '1984' are also very helpful for anyone who is trying to get their head around Muslimspeak).

Remember that Muslims believe Mohammed said 'war is deception', and pious Muslims believe that a. they are permanently at war with us and b. they are to imitate Mohammed's example. Ergo, we may expect them to lie to us whenever they deem it necessary.

Oh, and check out the 'faithfreedom' website run by Ali Sina, a Persian apostate from Islam.

As for apostasy and the traditional Islamic punishment for same, see Samuel Zwemer, "The Law of Apostasy in Islam", for a mountain of historic examples.