"The Warriors of Jihad Hope that, in the Distant Future, They Will Dwell Under the Roofs of the White House"

The scumbags, Islamic Jihadis are thugs and robbers just like their prophet the first Islamic terrorist Mohammad a lowlife thief. They are so mentally retarded and with such low levels of creativity and ingenuity that they can only retort to stealing and plunder. It has and been the Islamic way, that had been set as an example by Mohammad. Plunder and kill the prospering lands of non Muslims and kill and subjugate non Muslims. No wonder they have an eye on the US they need to fill up their coffers. I wonder why not plunder Saudi Arabia who out of geographic luck got that black gold.

"Al-Baghdadi stated that the message was not meant to threaten the Western countries, but only to urge them to "[act] fairly,"

We have the shining example of Sharia law to follow, don't we?

No, they will dwell in tents with camels and their beloved goats.

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=787&Itemid=1

Al-Baghdadi stated that the message was not meant to threaten the Western countries...
....................

How could anyone possibly consider this a threat? How Islamophobic!

More:

Al-Baghdadi called on the "new rulers of the White House...
....................

The concept of "public servant" is entirely missing from the Muslim mindset. Any head of state, even a duly elected President or Prime Minister of a democratic country, is considered one who "rules", not one governs. Nations are never seen to have reciprocal international relationships--it is always a question of who "dominates".

I guess this is pretty much what you can expect from a creed in which the devout conceive of themselves as "slaves of Allah".

'Sorry, but MY White House will never be used as a Mohammadan pedophilac brothel.

Don't even think about it.

Al-Baghdadi called on the "new rulers of the White House and their allies in other Christian countries" to "embrace Islam," and explained that "[Christians] are the closest religion [to Islam] from among [all world] nations."

This statement about Christianity is so bluntly false that to characterize it more accurately would be to say that Islam and Christianity are about as opposite in Theology, practice and meaning for mankind as one could imagine.

The God of the Bible never changes were Allah reserves the right to deceive. God is always right, Allah claims to be above right and wrong.

Christ offers life were the Koran offers death and no hope.

Christianity is for the freeing and betterment of man were Islam is about subjection and the destruction of the human race. History is but one proof.

Every virtue of man and God is taken by Islam and perverted or stolen.

Every virtue of man and God is taken by Islam and perverted or stolen.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL!

You are so right!

Jesus said love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Muslims hate on behalf of God.

See below.

* elhajgamal: “Greetings noble brothers. Is it permissible for us to address him by the color of his skin just because he is an enemy infidel whom we hate on behalf of God?”

Christ forgave His killers. Where is forgiveness or love in Islam?

'Al-Baghdadi called on the "new rulers of the White House and their allies in other Christian countries" to "embrace Islam,"...'
From the article.

I have a better idea. How about they embrace Christianity?

I have no doubt they will sleep under the roof in the Lincoln Bedroom, I just hope they are not scheduled to be sitting behind the Resolute on January 21.

I doubt that in the "distant future" there will be strong national states to even exist. The technological trends aren't friendly to World Government or even large nation-states. You can't impose totalitarian law over large areas of territory if your enforcers are being killed by superempowered individuals armed with homemade WMD. The jihadists might be lucky enough to establish various contradictory sharia law regimes in some of the microstates of the "distant future".

Look up:
"fifth generation war".
"super-empowered individual"
"desktop fabrication"
"bio weapons and nanotechnology"
"personal nukes"

Do you think bureaucratic states can even exist in a world where these things exist?

I haven't even started on talking about AI.

The hope-mongers are getting carried away. In the Age today, a letter asking when America will elect a woman president? And more: "What about a female Muslim president, by popular choice. Wouldn't that be a treat?" Yes, a (half) black man is good, but we can GO FURTHER. Some people are looking forward to Islamic rule. My God...

Rashid Khalidi, NOI, Black Panthers........Looks like they may get their wish...

R.A.W. - you touch on an issue that I have long pondered, that of the viability of organizationally complex states built on increasingly complex technologies that at the same time are becoming more and more fragile and susceptible to failure from minor disruptions in even a single component part. An example scenario is provided by asking what would happen if the GPS satellite network were to be taken out by a nuke lofted from Iran or North Korea and exploded at an altitude of, say, 1000 km? Or a suitcase nuke set off in the middle of WDC or NYC, or Paris, or Tokyo, or ...?

Your allusion to AI refers, of course, to the famous "tipping point" when computers rival or exceed human intelligence and then promptly take over. This is truly scary stuff, but I think the Four Horsemen lobbing exotic types of flaming arrows are rather more likely to be human than robots, at least in the foreseeable future.

We need to relearn the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and rein in those who would build machines (governmental structures included here) that exceed the capability of the designers to understand.

As a naive graduate student many years ago, I had occasion to have dinner with a visiting French nuclear scientist, right after Chernobyl. When I innocently questioned the wisdom of building technology that had the capability, if it went awry, of rendering large swaths of land uninhabitable for longer than the mean lifetime of civilizations (the half life of Plutonium is ~50,000 years, the mean lifetime of civilizations is ~500 years), he literally snapped my head off, stating that we know how to build systems that are safe. My reply was that there are two problems that are not addressed in deployment of large scale nuclear systems. (1) Even if the engineering is safe, it is only so temporarily, and safety systems sooner or later fail. (2) But the main reason I was concerned is that the safety is only as good as the stability of the underlying political system, and nations rise and fall. At this last he sniffed that WE (meaning the French) are completely stable now, and we're better engineers than the Soviets, so he didn't see what the problem would be. My response was to ask him which Republic is France now on, the Fifth? Remind me again what happened to the other previous four?

This will be a problem, too, with the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. I haven't seen any predictions of a failure of internal security in the U.S. that would threaten the safety of nuclear power plants, but can we really say we will be immune from social instability that would result in breach of these systems, and this immunity will extend indefinitely into the future? The designers of our technological systems seem to think so.

When asked about the possibility of a Muslim president, [Houston City Councilman M.J. (Masrur or Masroor Javed)] Khan did not hesitate: “For sure, there will be a president who will be from the Islamic community in the future of America … you can be assured that there will be a Muslim sitting in the White House.”

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/March/20070307175643berehellek0.4109156.html

Eastview said:

We need to relearn the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and rein in those who would build machines (governmental structures included here) that exceed the capability of the designers to understand.

Rein in those with what? State bureaucracies that can be destroyed by superempowered individuals?
Remember "desktop fabrication". You should checkout "globalguerillas blog".

I forgot to mention, the Islamic world is extremely vulnerable to biological attack. Sooner or later the Jihadis will find out that they're not the only private group of individuals that can cause mayham. Richard Fernandez on his Belmont Club blog mentioned this phenomenon and called it his "Fourth Conjecture".

As far as nuclear contamination, in most areas of the world a nuclear bomb isn't going to render an area uninhabitable for thousands of years (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fully inhabited). An important feature is weather. Rains tend to disperse radioactivity back down to safe levels (warm stove versus hot burning stove). It is the amount of radioactive material concentrated in an area that determines if the strength of its radioactivity can damage or not. Radium is contained in every piece of dirt from the ground, but if you concentrate it enough, the radioactivity from it can be strong enough to kill you.

I forgot to mention, the Islamic world is extremely vulnerable to biological attack. Sooner or later the Jihadis will find out that they're not the only private group of individuals that can cause mayham. Richard Fernandez on his Belmont Club blog mentioned this phenomenon and called it his "Fourth Conjecture". Posted by R.A.W.

A year or so ago, I suggested that there were vigilante groups comprised of former military special forces people, and that these highly trained squads planned to do some of the dirty work in the islamic world that the government could not or would not do. I mentioned this after talking to some personal friends in the military and after I overheard a conversation between some high-ranking military officers in which they discussed some of the targets and methods being considered.

These people, if they really exist, are not active military or connected to the U.S. government in any way. They are concerned, angry citizens with exceptional skills, willing to spend their own money and risk their lives to defend the West. Based on what I overheard, they believe that the U.S. government isn't doing enough to inhibit and discourage islamic terrorism and radicalism and that if islamic terrorists hit us again, they plan to retaliate in ways that will get their attention. Unfortunately, circumstances did not permit me to eavesdrop on the entire conversation so I didn't get any specifics.

The officers who were engaged in this conversation had apparently been informed of the existence of these "vigilantes" and did not advocate or support their proposed missions. However, I got the impression that unofficially, they were not entirely opposed to them.

Some people admonished me for my comments, although I did not advocate independent vigilante attacks against islamic targets. However, I think such attacks are inevitable if islamic terrorists continue to strike Western targets with impunity. If islamic terrorists can successfully and repeatedly attack the West killing thousands and causing billions in property damage, I guess Western terrorists can do the same and I imagine they will, sooner or later. I cannot predict the jihadist reaction to a little taste of their own medicine but I'm sure it would be typically irrational.