Al-Qaeda second banana: Muslim governments are protecting the interests of Crusaders and Jews, preventing Muslims from joining jihad

Those darned Muslim governments! They just aren't Muslim enough!

Even if the world converted to Islam, this sociopath would be running around declaring jihad against anyone who was not "Muslim" enough.

Here's a thought. If we get rid of him and the rest of his jihadi killers we wouldn't have to change a thing.

Seems more pragmatic to me.

Their strategy is very simple, they want to overthrow the Arab governments that can be manipulated and (to a reasonable degree)controlled by America. After that all those states will go up in one big pIslamic Khalifaat. That khalifaat will form big pIslamic armies to go out and conquer the rest of the non-islamic world and forcibly convert the remaining non-muslims to their pIslamic 'faith'.

To counter that the West should NOT insist on more democracy for the Arab world. Muslims are not capable of handling democracy, look at what's happening in Nigeria for example. Look what happend in Gaza, the muslims got their democratic elections and they elected those Hamas demons.
The West should support the Arab dictators because if democratic elections will be held in the Arab/Muslim world the muslims will certainly elect Taliban type of political parties.

Here's a thought. If we get rid of him and the rest of his jihadi killers we wouldn't have to change a thing.

tanstaafl,

There must be at least one million Muslims (a tiny minority of 'extremists') ready to carry on the fight in his name.

Sharia law needs to stay what it is, religious law. Governments shouldn't adopt this law whatsoever. I think us Americans call it "separation of church and state?"

Christopher Hamilton
The Right Opinion, for the Right Wing

A great deal more than separation of church and state are at risk. That alone is worth waging war over.

Individual rights of non-Muslims and women. In some ways, women are much better protected in Islamic law. However, the loss of choices and punishment are so hostile to our culture as to make it valid to wage organized warfare against. NO person is to EVER be stoned to death. Want to start a war? Nigeria is an excellent example of what we can expect as this 'legal' system expands.

"In some ways, women are much better protected in Islamic law."

Joe, in some ways cattle in pens are better protected than cattle on the open range, but they're still cattle.

RSI

So, the incompetent and useless CIA can't find out where this guy is, where the tapes are being made and how and where(the hosting Website)they are posted to the World Wide Web? What good are they and why is my taxpayer money being wasted on them if, by definition, they are FAILING TO DO THEIR JOB? Anyone dare to counter this statement? And don't give me the "it's sooo hard..." If so, then hire some f-ing geniuses to figure it out and put this Dog out of his misery for the good of mankind. Thank You.

How Islam no longer delivers the goods (from jpost.com letters):

Coming around

Sir, - Sadegh Zibakalam's call to "Expect a decline in religious fundamentalism in Iran" (November 10) was encouraging, but the world may also witness a global decline in Islamism. The modern rise in suicide terrorism is a key sign of impending change.

To understand why, one must appreciate the practical benefits that Islam traditionally bestowed on its adherents. While we may recoil morally today at early Islam's conquests, the faithful were nonetheless amply rewarded from taxes, booty and other privileges of dominance.

But those swashbuckling days are long gone. Material rewards now come from more mundane pursuits: oil drilling, business or professional degrees.

To compensate, there has been a shift to the more ethereal aspects of Islam for inspiration, with an emphasis on martyrdom and the afterlife. Enter suicide bombing, and one's rewards that now come in heaven.

Rest assured that Muslims are no different than anyone else when it comes to their rational self-interest. They will eventually see through the malarkey and demand something better

"In some ways, women are much better protected in Islamic law . . ."

Could you describe some of those ways, please?

Totalitarian ideologies will always produce leaders that demand a "Night of the Long Knives" kind of moment. Not only must non-believers be exterminated but even believers who are not pure enough must be terminated. Always has been this way and always will until mankind rids itself of all totalitarian ways of thought. I am optimistic that this will eventually occur but not before untold amounts of unnecessary tragedy ensue. For that matter, Islam itself is a tragedy-------and a travesty.

I have been watching "Britz" on BBC.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/345/index.jsp
I hate how noble moslem first degree murder is.

Clearly, they don't have a LensCrafters in the tunnels along the Afghan/Pakistan border.

I wonder if the jihadi grunts call him Sheikh Sally Jesse behind his back.

RedStateInfidel: You are quite correct. The very lack of choices forces women to get married or become 'public property'. I suspect that whatever that means is not very desirable. Your description of how we treat cattle is not far off. Except we execute cattle in a more humane way than stoning them to death.

Anytime you can take away a persons freedom or choices, you can claim that they are better protected. They are protected from themselves. They can't get into as much trouble.

Women are forced into being supported by men. This could be an advantage for certain types of individuals. Those in a position of privilege would be able to take advantage of the system. Many of the marriages are arranged, political marriages. That can work against you as well as for you. I am certain that only a very small percentage are in a postion that has these types of advantages.

That's one heckuva lobotomy scar. I'm surprised that a-Q hasn't paid for some corrective cosmetic surgery.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/bbc_americas_britz.html

Those darned Muslim governments! They just aren't Muslim enough!
Even if the world converted to Islam, this sociopath would be running around declaring jihad against anyone who was not "Muslim" enough.

Posted by: tanstaafl

Yes, in just the 6 days since the beginning of the Bombay attacks, the RoP site tallies 155 Moslems killed by their co-religionists, almost all in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I guess these governments aren't Moslem enough to suit some Moslems. That's almost as many as were killed in the Bombay massacre, and it's just an average week for the Moslem murder machine.

God forbid that any impediments be placed in the path of jihad, not that I've seen any. Pakistan is a haven for the jihad, offering every amenity to those eager for action.

I guess India and Israel will never know peace no matter how many concessions they make or how much land they give to muslims. It's never enough. Another plan to deal with muslims and their endless demands is desperately needed by both India and Israel. I wonder if the world will ever summon the courage to look the enemy in the eye and conquer it, ending centuries of islamic imperialism and jihad ambition. That's the only solution and it couldn't be more obvious. If islam cannot be isolated, it will have to be eliminated because muslims cannot coexist with the rest of humanity.

Robert,

My comment here is quite off topic of this thread, but it's a stab in the dark anyway. I participate in a number of very good weblogs where there are some very educated members - some of whom have contacts in the military or are military veterans - and some are even in academia. I try to bring the knowledge I've gained from the books you have written, my own reading of the Qur'an and English translations of some ahadith, books written by others like Bat Ye'or, Serge Trifkovic, Ali Sina, and Brigitte Gabriel. But a fair number of these people seem very closed off to these things. Now, these discussions that take place can often overlap with the topic of Islam.

I posted a comment at Richard Fernandez' blog: pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/

asking Wretchard (the nom-de-plume Mr. Fernandez uses) if he would contact you to invite you to participate in a blog discussion over there. I also included Hugh as worthy as a guest. I honestly think that some of the members over there would benefit from your appearance.

I'm always recommending this site, but am not so sure the people over there who are most deficient in their understanding of Islam ever overcome a certain intellectual sloth to get up to speed. A lamentable condition that perhaps you could put somewhat in abeyance.

LOL, Marisol! Yeah, he also looks like Rick Moranis.

Jewdog, surely you're aware of the Mohammedan capacity for denial. Muslims, almost without exception, think they have someone to blame for their failures: Jews, Americans, democracy, etc. Remember, we are dealing with people who think the Earh is flat. So long as Saudi Arabia keeps pumping out madrassas that keep pumping out sexually abused little boys whose educations render them unsuitable for janitorial work, this will not change. This is propaganda designed to make us hold out hope for the Muslim world so that we will continue to deal with them. Iran is the exception to this, but Iranians have always been better, smarter, and more decent than the rest of the Muslim world. Plus they export their worst and slowest to Hezbollah so they don't have to deal with them.

Ask a Muslim what he thinks the reasons are for the state of his home country. It could be anything, so long as it's not Islam. And they live under pervasive milieu control and lack legitimate educations. Islam has to completely unravel before they will ever understand. Ask an apostate. They only come to understand this once they apostacize, and they will invariably recount in great detail their own capacity for denial which is always fed by illegitimate education.

Joe Six Pack, I wasn't going to comment on your statement, but it's been nothering me for the last few minutes. From whom or what do you think that women need protection? Roving gangs of fratboys? And in what capacity are we less capable of defending ourselves? What a twisted worldview. I would bet my life that your mother no doubt whored her life away in exchange for a free ride and a tapeworm's epitaph, as did all the utter failures as mothers of people who think like you. And I would put $20 on your having lived in student housing for pedophiles your entire time at college and, if applicable, graduate school, if you received any higher eduation.

It's been bothering me too, in addition to merely nothering.

Peace, J.
In some quarters of America, some men believe that a women must hold a full-time wage-earning job, as well as a second unpaid full-time job caring for the house, husband, and children. Anything else is seen as "parasitical." The husband's parasiting off the woman's grinding second job goes unmentioned, of course.

These types of men interpret the Muslim view that a nikah-attached female is responsible solely for sexual availability to her husband as "protection." They view it as desirable, as the woman "does not have to work."

This resentful fantasy of females lazing in front of the television completely ignores Muslim reality: the women (in some Islamic countries, the majority of women) beaten freely and Koranically by their male owners; the female children molested and raped in nikah; the older and unwanted women divorced and left to starve because the Koran mandates no support; the women who lose their children; the uncovered and disobedient women who are harassed, attacked, mutilated by acid and knives, and murdered with the full collaboration of their parents, families, and entire communities -- with the smiling approval of imams and government officials.

The dehumanizing Koranic injunctions that women are lesser beings, whose dress, words, movements, behavior, and participation in the public sphere must be restricted to be "holy" completely elude Western men who think this way. They can't even perceive the hideous injustice of a "heaven" where men whore with female robots for eternity, while their wives . . . wait, one supposes. They see only women whose sole responsibility is "putting out," and this makes them both resentful and envious -- as a Muslim male is entitled to four females, not just their one. Yet they do not see this as simple prostitution -- they see it as "protection."

The fear and blood and misery, the narrowed world, the bars on the windows and in the mind, are completely irrelevant. "She doesn't have to work." That is the beginning, and the end, of the "protection" analysis.

But men who subscribe to the notion that women need men to protect them are both weak and stupid. That is the crux of misogyny and men and women who buy into it have no business breeding. Misogyny is pure projection of the most transparent sort. Women can do everything men can do, most things better, and we can also bear children, have multiple orgasms, and most importantly here, control men with our sexuality, which makes misoynist men ... weak and stupid, which is why they project that onto women. His notion that women need protecting hinges upon his own weakness, stupidity, and ill-breeding. Were it not for men and women who buy into that the human race would be far, far more advanced, but it's not. We're held back by people who choose to defy Darwinism and it's unfortunate. We fight wars aganist the inbred, unevolved people of this world. It is not a coincidence that only the most degenerate of people end up in Al Qaeda and the like, and the Joe Six Packs of this world are only a tiny notch above them on the food chain. Even if he is not the result of millenia of arranged marriages and inbreeding (i.e., evolution in reverse and to within a generation or two of living in a zoo), he may as well be if he thinks like that.

I would sincerely hope that any woman stupid enough to put out for a guy like that would freeze or starve to death in the street at 35 for the sake of humanity at large. I would not wish that upon a dog, but I hope for that for women who raise children who believe that women need protecting. They, without exception, I repeat, whore their lives away in exchange for a free ride and a tapeworm's epitaph. If social services existed for any noble purpose they would take away all the children of housewives so as to rid the human race of people like that. Orphanhood is far preferable to turning out like Joe Six Pack.

Killing off the top dogs of A-Q etc. has a distinctly chilling effect for others to rise to the bat. It's workable, and the faster, the better.

Oh. Racial profilin would work wonders, too. I'm curious as to when our governments take this easy and cheap step to improve our security. Oh? You say I shouldn't hold my breath. OK (*exhale*).

As for the mark on his forehead, one may come to think of Revelation.

"The first objective is to overthrow those Muslim governments and replace them with Sharia states."

And yet, there are many here who continue to insist that all Muslim states are the same and should be treated as such.

There must be at least one million Muslims (a tiny minority of 'extremists') ready to carry on the fight in his name.

Posted by: PMK at December 1, 2008 7:02 PM

So? Your point? That there's too many jihadis? That we should just give up and negotiate a treaty with these yahoos?

Read the history of the jihad. It never stops and no kuffar has ever made a treaty with the jihad that lasted.

I wonder if the world will ever summon the courage to look the enemy in the eye and conquer it, ending centuries of islamic imperialism and jihad ambition. That's the only solution and it couldn't be more obvious. If islam cannot be isolated, it will have to be eliminated because muslims cannot coexist with the rest of humanity.

Cornelius, all Muslim governments ARE Sharia states. They just don't all practice Sharia criminal law. But name one Islamic paradise that doesn't have Sharia civil law. Most of them have Sharia criminal law sans the hudood punishments, but with capital punishment for all the same offenses that Sharia mandates. They just don't cut off hands and feet. Many even lash people, like Indonesia. Remember, Zawahiri's Egyptian. If he's anything like the Egyptians I know, he believes that Egypt is a democracy. Never mind that it's a one-party political system backed by the military. According to his inept Sharia education - which only covers language, math, and the Koran - that's a democracy, as was Saddam Hussein's regime. He thinks that "term limits" refers to how long a single term of a dictator (who he wrongly believes to have been democratically elected) lasts, not how many terms a leader can serve. He just wants slavery, basically.

Henrik, speaking of signs from Revelations: http://www.thewatchmanstime.com/Allah%20is%20the%20Devil.pdf

Wellington wrote:

Totalitarian ideologies will always produce leaders that demand a "Night of the Long Knives" kind of moment. Not only must non-believers be exterminated but even believers who are not pure enough must be terminated.
.....................

Exactly. There is even a name for this--"takfir"--declaring other Muslims to be apostate or insufficiently Islamic. This also give the lie to the idea--craven in itself--that all would be peaceful if only the whole world would submit to the "peace of Islam".

There would be no peace--just a splintering into rival sects and tribes, all considering the others as not "real Muslims". You see it all over the Muslim world, with Sunni and Shia, Hamas and Fatah, oppressive Muslim dictatorships and those who do not believe them to be oppressive enough.

In addition, anytime you have a situation where a "leader" cannot be voted out or removed democratically--as in the Caliphate--it is an open invitation to every usurper and disgruntled second son. So much for the idea that the Caliph has the stamp of approval from "Allah".

Ugly wars of succession mar Islam from the very beginning.

Gotta love this Dr. Z, with the AK-47 propped up against his religious library backdrop. He's a real poster child for Islam, isn't he? I wonder which Islamic optometrist he got his prescription from for his spectacles? Next time he gets his eyes checked he should also get a recommendation for a good orthodontist, maybe also consider doing something about that horrible protuberance on his forehead. Trimming his beard to make it a little more even, maybe think about darkening it a little, would also help. It's fortunate that the computer kids haven't yet figured out how to include olfactory components in internet communications systems (although you know they're working on it), or one might be forced to comment on Dr. Z's personal hygiene, too.

(This TypePad thing is really maddening. My guess is that users get kicked off when their system gets overloaded. The solution would for them to upgrade their system with a massive increase in server capacity.)

That isn't very likely to happen. If one million protestors can turn out in London to protest the removal of Saddam Hussein, then what is the likelihood of conquering the entire Islamic world and end centuries of Islamic imperialism and Jihad ambition. Hell, we have stupidly written Islam into the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 2, 2008 9:52 AM

Do you believe that non-muslims of the West and the rest have lost their survival instinct? When I was asking my rhetorical question "will the world ever summon the courage to look the enemy in the eye and conquer it?", I first wrote "kill" instead of "conquer" because I realize that millions of muslims will have to die to defeat islam's manifest destiny of world domination. I am not a cruel, blood-thirsty person with delusions of superiority like the average muslim but I am a realist. If the modern, civilized world is to survive, a war with islam is inevitable. We can either sit around and make excuses followed by more concessions to muslim savages every time a "few radicals" go on bloody rampages and slaughter innocent civilians, or we can dispense with the politically correct, diplomatic nonsense and acknowledge the elephant in the room. Once the enemy is named, there are a multitude of potential solutions to defeat it. There is no plausible reason that any nation should be forced to allow primitive, bellicose muslim sociopaths to invade its lands, disrupt its society, and impose their incompatible religion and culture on the indigenous population.

We know muslims are the enemy whether they are violent terrorists or passive terrorists. They're all terrorists because they intend to destroy our societies and governments and expropriate our wealth, our countries, and our freedom. When will someone in a position of power have the courage to "look muslims in the eye" and tell them the charade is over?! The untenable, volatile situations in the U.K. and Europe will erupt in riots and possibly civil war within five or ten years unless things drastically change and I see no sign of that. Europe seems to have forgotten the Ottoman Empire and what it did to Eastern Europe, its lingering legacy still wreaking havoc. Muslims will eventually become the majority population in many areas of Europe. What then? Whose side will American politicians take when all Hell breaks loose? I am so afraid I know the answer to that question and it sickens me.

Islamic law, an integral facet of the islamic faith, is absolutely, 100% incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and all other forms of Western government. So how can we allow the practice of a threatening belief system that is in direct conflict with the Constitution and our own laws? Islam should be banned and made illegal in every Western country.