Hospital patients in bomb shelter, courtesy Hamas
Which didn't keep this hospital from being a target of Hamas rockets.
"Fear of rockets sends Israeli hospital underground," by Aron Heller for Associated Press, December 28 (thanks to Michael):
ASHKELON, Israel -- The largest hospital on Israel's southern coast has gone underground.Wary of a missile strike against it from the nearby Gaza Strip, Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital has moved its most essential departments into an underground bomb shelter.
The threat is a real one: In February a rocket from Gaza landed adjacent to the hospital's helicopter pad and in May a rocket crashed into a busy shopping mall in the city, injuring 14 people.
The hospital in this city of 120,000 people about 17 kilometers (11 miles) north of the Gaza border has sent half its patients home to get them out of harm's way. Those remaining are jammed in rooms previously used for storage.
[...]
In Barzilai's underground children's ward, sick Gazans lay alongside sick Israelis as a clown hopped around trying to coax smiles. Lobel said that his facility had close ties with Gaza's Shifa hospital, and accepted many of its patients who need treatment the Gazan hospital cannot provide. He said it wasn't uncommon to have a colleague in Gaza call him for assistance even as rockets rained down on Ashkelon.
"It might seem completely absurd," Lobel said. "But we have the privilege to be doctors. Our medical ethics do not distinguish between patients. We treat whoever needs to be treated."
A Gaza woman, whose two-month-old granddaughter was being treated for an unidentified ailment, wept when asked how she was coping. She said she was fortunate her granddaughter was getting the best medical treatment but was worried about her daughter and other grandchildren in Gaza City. She said some of their neighbors were among the more than 280 people killed in the Israeli airstrikes.
"I am very sad and hurt," she said, in Arabic. "We want peace, not war."
She refused to identify herself or have her picture taken, for fear of retribution if her presence in Israel was discovered in Gaza....
Permit me to say: Islam is NOT a religion a peace.
Further, ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION AT ALL. It is a set of beliefs brought forth from barbarian middle eastern tribal behaviors. Religion has nothing to do with it. Hated and fear of most things and ideas is at it's core. Especially, freedom.
It has been codified over thirteen centuries by those of like mind, and sold to the gullible as a 'relgion' (of peace). Give me a break.
Like it or not, the whole world is going to deal with this sooner or later.
This hospital, and Israeli humaneness, demonstrates the falsity and insanity of the Islamist worldview.
You guys will believe anything. I have been keeping up to date on all the news coming out of the region. In reality the Zionist monsters must be doing some kind of naziesque experiments on these unsuspecting members of the glorious islamic Arab nation!
The Muslims never learn. There is a real reason behind that.
"It might seem completely absurd," Lobel said. "But we have the privilege to be doctors. Our medical ethics do not distinguish between patients. We treat whoever needs to be treated."
"You guys will believe anything. I have been keeping up to date on all the news coming out of the region. In reality the Zionist monsters must be doing some kind of naziesque experiments on these unsuspecting members of the glorious islamic Arab nation! Posted by: CJK"
The Muslims cant read. There is a good reason behind that.
I have come to the conclusion that this blog is useless. Jihad Watch is totally one-sided and all it does is pander to the fears and anxieties harboured by many non-Muslims. I would suggest that anyone who regularly reads this blog asks themselves one question: 'Am I being fair?'
Is it fair to deliberately slant every issue so that is has a pro-West, anti-Arab agenda? Is it fair to gang up and bully the Islamic faith? Is it fair to propel the least newsworthy stories (such as this one) to your front page, simply because they happen to prop up your own, pre-determined opinion?
Think long and hard about that. To show that I am fair, I will end by actually AGREEING with you. Here is an article I just wrote about a suicide bomber in Iraq targeting, of all things, an anti-Israel rally...
http://riverscrap.typepad.com/home/2008/12/strange-bedfellows-al-qaeda-strikes-antiisraeli-mob.html
Unlike the writers on Jihad Watch, I will criticise Arabs as quickly as I criticise Israelis. In the above case, this Arab man is a despicable, murderous hypocrite. He is scum. By that same token, killing 280 Palestinians because one Israeli dies in a rocket attack is a despicable and unjustifiable action.
Everyone who reads this blog should think long and hard about why they find it so appealing. Is it because they seek the truth, or because they seek reinforcement of their own prejudices?
Bye, M
Has anyone else noticed how the Trolls are starting to use westernised screen names.
Like "Martin" etc ?
Yet, Martin, an independent observer, AP's Ibrahim Barzak, notes that the bulk of fatalities in Gaza are HAMAS militants. Given the implacable, genocidal hatred and endless provocations of HAMAS and its state sponsors, why is Israel's response not justified and proportionate? Shouldn't the whole apparatus of HAMAS terror and warfare be attacked and degraded?
rookie: I have a detailed background on my blog which confirms that I am indeed a westerner, living in London. Not that that should matter one iota.
John C: I agree that a response from Israel to the rocket attacks is indeed justified. If France started firing rockets at England I would sure as hell expect my govt to hit back. My problem is simply with the numbers: Hamas kills one Israeli, so Israel kills 280 Palestinians. I do not believe a Jew's life is worth any more than an Arab's, so I inevitable reach the conclusion that this is wrong.
I think Hamas is a scheming, conniving terrorist organisation. Their leadership should be decapitated and I have no problem with senior members being killed by bombs from above.
I do, however, have a problem with innocent Palestinian children dying in their beds simply because Israel got trigger happy
Even-handedness is not an end in itself. Reflexive moral equivalence, where everything balances out, fails to explain human malice. Shallow thinking is more useless than strong opinions. Thank you for your useless moderation and gratutitous tut-tutting, Martin, and goodbye.
280 and more than 90% are terrorists who are not fit to breath air
Martin,
You mean well, but you seem to contradict yourself as you give ground back to us Islamophobic ideologues.
A troll has spoken above...
From troll central: Is it fair to deliberately slant every issue so that is has a pro-West, anti-Arab agenda? Is it fair to gang up and bully the Islamic faith?
Fair hell...The last thing Islam deserves is 'fair'. Islam does not give 'fair' so it deserves no 'fair'...
From the super fair troller above: I have come to the conclusion that this blog is useless.
Ok give me an example of a useful anti-jihad website...I'm sure you can come up with one...
Bye, swami
Is it fair ... by the Troll "Martin Rivers".
Martin Rivers is a nice Arabic name don't you think dude?
Care to tell us is it fair that the Muslims .....
In India, they fight with the Indians.
In Thailand, they fight with the Buddhists.
In the Philippines, they fight with the Catholics.
In the Middle East, they fight with the Jews.And with each other.
In Europe, they fight with the Christians.
In China, they fight with the communists.
In Germany, they fight with the Germans.
In Malaysia, they fight with the Chinese and Indians.
In France, they fight with the secularists and Catholics.
In Russia, they fight with the non-Muslim Russians.
In the US, they fight with the “house negroes”, Latino workers, blind people with a dog, cab passengers, with alcohol.
In Denmark, they fight with the cartoons.
In Sudan, they fight with a teddy bear named Muhammad AND KILL CIVILIANS.
In Indonesia, they fight with other Muslims.
In Iran they fight with the homosexuals.
In Pakistan they fight with each other.
In Saudie Arabia they fight with anyone not Sunni.
John C: I'm not "giving ground back" to you guys - I said all along that you are 50% right. Hamas is a scummy, dastardly, putridly offensive organisation that deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth. You are also 50% wrong, however, when you deploy sophistry to justify Muslims deserving whatever you can throw at them
Swammi: I have no interest in discovering an anti-jihad website anymore than I wish to discover an anti-Israel website. And btw: If you understood anything about Islam, you would know that the word 'jihad' refers to the 'struggle' within oneself to attain God's will. It is only thugs like Al Qaeda and Hamas who have hijacked the term to their own ends
Islamist radicalism = lame
anti-Islamic radicalism = lame
Give moderation a chance
"In the above case, this Arab man is a despicable, murderous hypocrite. He is scum."
Martin-why are you so sure this is an Arab? The news has NOT been very descriptive. A little judgmental yourself, possibly?
"I agree that a response from Israel to the rocket attacks is indeed justified. If France started firing rockets at England I would sure as hell expect my govt to hit back."
Don't worry Martin, France will be the first state in E.U.rabia. They WILL be hitting your back door and pretty soon from the looks of it. But here's hoping that they just keep lobbing rockets and terrorizing civilians day after day for, oh, let's say for argument's sake, six months. Maybe then, tired of tolerant restraint, your government will deal with them.
"Jihad Watch is totally one-sided and all it does is pander to the fears and anxieties harboured by many non-Muslims."
Yes Martin, there is a Santa Claus. I am afraid, very afraid and totally on-guard. My personal thanks goes to Jihad Watch for keeping me alert and totally biased. That's what "un-dhimmification" is all about. Exposing mythologies of "tolerance" in islam. Plain and simple, it doesn't exist.
"the word 'jihad' refers to the 'struggle' within oneself to attain God's will.Posted by: Martin Rivers"
You are a comedian, right? This is one of the oldest Islamic jokes did many rounds right here ... try a new one dude.
And btw: If you understood anything about Islam, you would know that the word 'jihad' refers to the 'struggle' within oneself to attain God's will.
seriously who are you trying to fool ??? this will not work here.
Martin: And btw: If you understood anything about Islam, you would know that the word 'jihad' refers to the 'struggle' within oneself to attain God's will.
How long have you been living in that cave Martin?
Does Gabriel appear to you there? Does he tell you funny stuff like that?
That subject has been dealt with here and other places a thousand times...sorry you were indisposed and missed it...
I suppose you also believe that Allah is God and Mohammad his messenger...Wouldn't surprise me...
Martin Rivers: Moral equivalency thinking has led you into the massive errors in thought you have demonstrated in spades by posting here. You are not enlightened by thinking that approximate equal criticism of both sides in this conflict of generations in the Middle East is the right path to pursue. You might as well conclude, following your inept line of reasoning, that British and American bombing of Germany in WWII was really just as awful as German bombing of Britain. Want to criticize WWII era Americans and Brits for this equally with Nazi Germany? Really?
What you clearly don't see is what Winston Churchill saw so well, which is that civilization must at times stoop to the level of the barbarian to preserve civilization, tragic as that may be. Here you're clueless. Utterly clueless. Though I have no doubt you think yourself fairer than most. I suspect you will no matter what anyone puts forth. Done here. Now, go away. Your moral certitude is a sham. Your fairness is an idiocy.
I guess I'll add a few words.
1. The current operation is not about achieving parity with the last attack. It's about making the attacks -- all of them -- stop, and ensuring they can't happen again: No more random rocket attacks, no more kidnappings, no safe haven for a group committed to Israel's destruction. That's why, recalling Robert's Pearl Harbor analogy yesterday, we didn't just take out a few ships in a Japanese harbor and call it a day in WWII.
2. I will not stand by idly as someone accuses us of being "anti-Arab." This is not about ethnicity; it is about ideology.
3. Martin asked: "Everyone who reads this blog should think long and hard about why they find it so appealing. Is it because they seek the truth, or because they seek reinforcement of their own prejudices?"
I'll tell you why: No one gets at the heart of the ideology of Islamic terrorism like Robert Spencer. I am proud to work for him.
But I was once a first-time visitor to the blog too. This is what hooked me: The rational, verifiable citation of Islamic texts on jihad and dhimmitude -- as they are presented and interpreted by Muslims -- is the "missing link" in counter-terror work that so many either don't know about, or don't want to believe is true. And for clear, thorough presentation of those facts, combined with humanity, insistence on the best of Western principles, and humor, well, there's only one Robert Spencer.
To all who contend that 'jihad' does not refer to inner 'struggle': you better pop over to Wikipedia and correct their egregious error! PS You all seem to suggest this subject is now 'out of bounds' - who ordained that I wonder? Perhaps the guy who is selling his books through this blog?
Wellington: Interesting reasoning - shame you had to pepper it with personal insults. I will admit that what you said certainly prompted me to think about the notion that evil 'for the greater good' is justified. I won't rule out that it very possibly is. What I will say is this...
We won World War II. We prevailed.
Israel has being using brute force for five decades. In all that time, has the fist shown any signs of leaving to victory?
MarisolJW...Excellent...Thanks...
I'll tell you why: No one gets at the heart of the ideology of Islamic terrorism like Robert Spencer. I am proud to work for him.
I don't know that anyone has said it better...
As far as the Gaza fatalities go, I read that the majority are Hamas soldiers since the Israelis specifically targeted Hamas strongholds. War is war, and innocent people will get caught in it no matter what. It's sad, but that's the reality of war.
I support Israel 100%.
"We won World War II. We prevailed.Posted by: Martin Rivers"
You did not win WW-II. We won the war.
Wikipedia?...your learning your Islam from Wikipedia?
Try this, it's a footnote to the Quran attributed to Imam Bukhari:
Noble Qur'an:2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."
Does this sound like an inner struggle?
Please note the last two sentences about 'obligation' and hypocrisy...No Mohammadan wants to die a hypocrite...
During WW2, the Allies showed an apalling anti-Nazi bias. This deadly attitude could lead to more acts of insane Naziphobia like the firebombing of Dresden.
I am not saying I support Nazi ideals, it's just immoral if more Nazis die than non-Nazis. Further, it isn't fair that the Axis powers didn't also get to win WW2.
I guess what I am trying to say is I support the annihilation of the Jews by means of a moral equivocation that is entirely opposed to reality and human nature. I'll cover this up by playing on people's feelings and showing them pictures of a Palestinian child crying. How dare the Jews!
When Jews die in Israel, or anywhere else, at the hands of screaming, foam-at-the-mouth muslims, I will do nothing. Because who gives a shit about Jews? Jews don't murder people for disbelieving their religion; therefore they can be walked on, abused, and annihilated with complete impunity.
Martin,
We have different conceptions about proportionality. HAMAS knew that this reaction by Israel would come; they calculated that they could turn Israel's strength and vigorous self-defense back against her in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, Israel is acting justifiably, in striking the very source of violent attacks. Talk of our valuing Arab Muslim lives more cheaply is condescending; the jihadists' worldview debased human life.
Martin you seem to be adopting uncritically the number of 280 dead. The figure comes from doctors from Shifa hospital in Gaza and they have been known to tell untruths. I suggest we wait and see.
And if you don't agree with the manner, what is your alternative response to eight years of rocket pounding of a civilian population (many of whom, by the way, fled horrible persecution and pogroms in their arab/muslim countries and found refuge in Israel).
Martin Rivers:
I have come to the conclusion that this blog is useless. Jihad Watch is totally one-sided and all it does is pander to the fears and anxieties harboured by many non-Muslims.
Jihad Watch mostly gathers and disseminates news about the global jihad and Islamic activities, so what you are really saying is that there shouldn't be any sites spreading information about those subjects. That's pretty one-sided.
It is interesting that merely reporting on the activities of Muslims is enough to alarm Islamic apologists. It's almost as if they have something to hide.
Is it fair to gang up and bully the Islamic faith?
Jihad Watch is a website run by a couple of people who don't do anything except write and talk about stuff. It is hardly capable of "ganging up" and "bullying" the >1 billion Muslims of the world. Muslims, on the other hand, have repeatedly shown themselves able and willing to violently bully others to great effect.
By that same token, killing 280 Palestinians because one Israeli dies in a rocket attack is a despicable and unjustifiable action.
That is not how war works, has worked or will ever work. As was written here earlier, nobody is complaining that going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor was a "disproportionate" response. Why should Israel be subjected to special rules that don't apply to anyone else?
Everyone who reads this blog should think long and hard about why they find it so appealing. Is it because they seek the truth, or because they seek reinforcement of their own prejudices?
Prejudice is yet another one of those meaningless, emotionally charged words that are used as substitutes for actual arguments. I would tell you to consult a dictionary if I believed that your usage of the word is the result of ignorance and not ideology.
Jr: "When Jews die in Israel, or anywhere else, at the hands of screaming, foam-at-the-mouth muslims, I will do nothing" - please read my earlier posts, where I heap abundant criticism on the hate-filled, murderous scumbags of Hamas
duh_swami: Nope, actually I first learnt about jihad being an inner struggle at university. I still have the textbook: A History of the Modern Middle East (Cleveland). It talks in length about the ambiguity of 'jihad', and how its precise meaning is open to interpretation.
The same ambiguity applies to all religious texts, e.g. the Bible
The reason many visitors to this site are so fearful is because Islamophobes seize the most threatening, offensive interpretation (ie that espoused by Al Qaeda) and hold it up as evidence that the Muslim faith is hellbent on annihilating the world. This is not true.
Some Muslim clerics are jerks. Others are peace loving intellectuals. I think people who live in multicultural environments such as London tend to be far receptive to this notion
@ Martin Rivers
1. It's funny how guys like you talk about what's proportionate and what is disproportionate. What you FAIL to understand is that Israel needs to act disproportionate. It needs to avenge the death of 1 Israeli citizen with the deaths of many many palestinian terrorists and there is a simple reason behind that. The Israeli population is much smaller than the Arab population (and yes palestinians are part of the arab population). If Israel avenges each one of it's death with one death on the arab side then they will lose because the arabs will laugh at the israeli actions and just be encouraged to go ahead with their plans of killing all Jews. Because the simple population numbers game doesn't add up in favor of Israel they have to be 'disproportianate'. Besides this is WAR, avenging one of your death with the deaths of 100/1000 enemies is the sensible thing one has to do in wartime.
2. You talk about being fair yet while talking about the palestinian civilian deaths you blame Israel for that. You FAIL to blame Hamas, they are the real culprits. By firing rockets at israel offcourse that will provoke a Israeli reaction. Besides that hamas is operating and hiding amongst the civilian population, so if Israel strikes at Hamas targets civilian deaths will come as matter of collateral damage. But that doesn't mean that Israel had the INTEND to kill palestinian civilians, their target is HAMAS. Civilians are killed because hamas deliberatly hides and operates from within the civilian population. If you were fair you would point the blaming finger for 100% at Hamas. But offcourse people like you have to point the finger of blame at Israel.
3. You talk about the innocent civilian population of Gaza. Please give me a break. It was that same 'innocent' civilian population that voted for hamas (a recognized TERROR ORGANISATION) at the elections. It is that same 'innocent'civilian population that you can see on the T.V. celebrating and giving sweets to each other when some israeli gets killed in a terrorstrike. It is that same 'ínnocent' civilian population that stands by and supports hamas (a TERROR ORGANISATION).
People like you have to go around equating things that are inequatable. Please do some research into what Islam really is before you come with your politaclly correct statements which infact are nothing more than utter nonsense
The same ambiguity applies to all religious texts, e.g. the Bible - MR
Care to give us an example where such ambiguity about Jihad are written in the Bible?
Ya gotta love this site! All the keypads are blazing as arguments abound! I think I am beginning to love it when trolls and dhimmis visit! It keeps our wits sharp!
Martin-please go live in the middle east and practice "fairness" there. In Britain, on your doff, moral equivalency is a beautiful thing. In Saudia or UAE or even Gaza (where the woman quoted above has to hide her face for fear of reprisal), it doesn't exist. I should know. I lived in an islamic state for 8 months, locked up because I was a "new" wife.
Those musselmen will have you bent over backwards and reamed so fast your head will spin! But you could plead for tolerance and fairness there with all assuredness while they're beheading your infidel dhimmi butt.
The only reason I got out was by using my brains! (shudder, the islamists hate intelligent women from the west, we ALWAYS outwit them! And-they call no fair on it too! lol)
France-the first state in E.U.rabia! Coming soon to your back door! And-the muslim parliament of the UK takes session even now, while the Brits sit on their doffs in fairness and do nothing...
I Thank God USA won the revolution against Britain...
"actually I first learnt about jihad being an inner struggle at university. - MR"
What a waste of time that has been. We hear Jihad from every terrorists that exist in the Muslim world, before and after they butcher their helpless victims. I say helpless for a good reason. Here is what your gutless Jihadies did in Mombay to a Jewish pregnent lady ..
"It was much worse than genital mutilation
Regretfully as a doctor I must add the horrible truth is the Muslim terrorists buchered the mother while alive by cutting open the womb and removed the baby which they also slaughtered. The torture suffered would be beyond anyone imagination.
Sikh Doctor, India (28/12/08)"
To heck with you and your internal spiritial stuggle.
Martin the Moral-
Just because Hamas aims more inefficiently than Israel is no reason to pose silly moral equivalencies betwwen a terrorist gang of theocratic maniacs and a legitmate state, created by the U.N., defending itself from their attacks (however thankfully incompetent).
Hamas must be destroyed.
Jesus Christ Supercop:
1. On my blog I report daily on suicide bombings and other atrocities perpetrated by Islamist terrorists. I do not at all think this news should be silenced - if I did, I wouldn't spend hours researching and writing about it.
2. Time doesn't permit me to give a detailed breakdown of each individual article on this site, but here is my analysis of the top five posts on the blog. EVERY SINGLE ONE perpetuates an anti-Arab stance:
*Those evil Zionists: Israeli hospital treats Gazans*
-> clear inference of sarcasm, read: 'anyone who thinks Israelis are bad people should consider this fantastic thing they're doing'
*Diana West: Friends and Enemies*
-> "the world's mad reaction to Israel's defending itself" - the word 'mad' unequivocally suggests critics of Israel's Gaza strike (such as myself) are in the wrong. No room for debate is allowed
*Hizballah Top Dog predicts divine victory for Hamas*
-> Nothing biased. I have no complaint about this post
*"Popular" Saudi cleric issues fatwa inciting Muslims to "avenge" themselves upon Israel*
-> "the Saudi king plays 'diplomat'," - use of the word "plays" is clearly condescending. Once again the presuppositional judgement has been made by the editor. No room for debate
*Thousands of Muslims protest against Al-Qaeda "hijacking" their religion -- no, wait...*
-> "why are they doing this now? Because they know how to tug on credulous Western heartstrings." - speaks for itself. Post clearly suggests that people campaigning against Israeli military action are doing solely to manipulate western opinion. It does not raise the possibility of the protesters genuinely caring about the civilians among those 280 victims
There you have it. Four out of the top five articles have a CLEAR PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA. That is not unbiased reporting.
3. I addressed this in my post to duh_swami
4. I've written in length about my opinion and I don't at all believe that I invoked the word "prejudice" as a "substitute for actual arguments". I am also familiar with the dictionary definition of the word, thank you, and I respectfully disagree with your assessment that I am ignorant.
Is it fair to propel the least newsworthy stories (such as this one) to your front page, simply because they happen to prop up your own, pre-determined opinion?
@ Martin Rivers,
So according to you JihadWatch had no right to post this article showing that the Israeli's even take care of their enemies. No people like you would only like to see the pictures of the palestinian deaths by those 'evil zionists' and read about exaggerated numbers of palestinian deaths. Yeah that's 'fair' according to you guys.
You whine about those confirmed independetly. Besides that MOST of those deaths were hamas terrorists anyway, and they don't deserve to live. Yet you keep on whining about the deaths of those terrorists. Why don't you invite them over in your own house if you feel so close with those muslim terrorists???
ps. If you find this blog useless what the hell are you doing here ??? If you find this blog useless you are FREE to leave it and go to some other nutty left wing/ pro palestinian terrorists/ pro muslim terrorist site. I am sure you would really find yourself at home at those sites.
I do try to respect all individuals as individuals, Muslims and boggers named Rivers included.
That said, let me propose a re-working of the moral equation you posit, Mart:
Fromn above: I still have the textbook: A History of the Modern Middle East (Cleveland). It talks in length about the ambiguity of 'jihad', and how its precise meaning is open to interpretation.
Everything about Islam is ambiguous, but they act on it just the same...You did not comment on the
Jihad definition that I posted that is not in the Quran, but is acceptable enough for a footnote.
I can produce, and so can most everyone who posts here, numerous other Quotes from the Quran and hadith, that show that jihad is a whole lot more than inner struggle...But that has already been shown here many times, so it's just redundancy...You will only believe what you want to believe anyway...
It does not sound to me like you know much about Islam...Have you actually read the Quran or any Ahadith?...And once again, Do you believe Allah is God and Mohammad his messenger??
To Martin the great scholar of Islam
taken from this site ; read the debate carefully
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Challenge-to-Close-Islam-watch-Debate-on-Sword-Verse.htm
Quran 9:5 says,
But when the forbidden months (i.e., 4-month grace-period given in verse 9:2) are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
On the significance of verse 9:5, the verse of the sword, Ibn Kathir writes:
(Caliph) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs (hadiths), it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''
"Care to give us an example where such ambiguity about Jihad are written in the Bible?"
Sure. Here you go: Num. 31:7, 14
"They waged war as god had commanded them and killed every male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. 'So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse and kill every little boy, but keep the virgin girls for yourself. Divide them up evenly.'"
Martin Rivers: Insults? No, just stating things as they are. When a moral equivalizer asserts his moral equivalency, such a person needs to be read the riot act. One of the great stupidities of our age is moral equivalency thinking (e.g., silly Cold War logic: sure the USSR has its faults, but so does the USA; therefore one must be equally critical of both). It's not only wrong, but what's just as bad is that the moral equivalizer actually thinks, in most every instance, that he is above those who have convictions about things like civilization versus anti-civilization------ah, he's fair, impartial and wise.
This erroneous moral certitude is insufferable to those who see more clearly; a false sense of fairness needs to be taken to task. So, why shouldn't a person embracing this particular egregious error be ridiculed? Really, if one can't see that Hamas represents anti-civilization and Israel represents civilization, then all else is muddled and improper conclusions are sure to follow-------such as yours.
I will assume in your daily life that you're really a very nice fellow. But significant errors in reasoning, when proffered as wisdom, must, by necessity, be disembowelled, so to speak. The world is too delicate a place, and mankind too important a species, to allow for too great an indulgence here.
Please get real, MR--nobody ever suggested that JihadWatch doesn't exhibit a particular point of view or display an attitude. That's probably why, perversely, that you're here--to enlighten us rubes as to why we're here.
Martin--
Nothing to say about 7:58pm above?
Sure. Here you go: Num. 31:7, 14
"They waged war as god had commanded them and killed every male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. 'So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse and kill every little boy, but keep the virgin girls for yourself. Divide them up evenly.'"
Posted by: Martin Rivers ----
------------------
Here you referring Jihad to a war scenario. That is a quick U-turn you just took. What is actually ambiguous you find about all this? It is as clear statement as anyone can care to write.
"Proportionate" in the context of military conflict has NOTHING to do with tit-for-tat.
The concept of proportionate response
in respect of internatonal law derives
from the Geneva Conventions. It dictates
that the benefits to military objectives
be in proportion to the civil harms done.
The concept of proportionate response
in respect of ordinary domestic crime
means that the degree of punishment
should fit the crime. More familiar,
but NOT the issue the Geneva Conventions
address.
There is no validity to measuring
ratios of body counts as a test of
"proportionality." It sure makes for
sensational press, and the hard numbers,
even if true, convey an illusion of authority.
As a side note, not all nations subscribe
to all protocols and amendments to the
Geneva Conventions, and HAMAS isn't a
party at all. IANAIL. Don't take my
word for any of this. Read the documents
yourselves. They are easily available online.
ocelot
Martin, can you actully find an instance of Christians or Jews killing in the name of their religion, based on that verse?
Actually, can you find find Christians or Jews killing based on any verse?
So far, all you've done is list a verse no one has applied since the one time Moses did it 3000+ years ago.
Why is it no Christians or Jews are behaving like muslims?
Does it frustrate you that reality mocks your every assertion?
Since according to you, that verse in Numbers is a standing command for them to kill non-believers, why don't we see and yeshivas or monasteries being used to wage war against non-believers?
Where are all the Christian and Jewish suicide bombers?
Where is the non-muslim cognate to the race-riots and muslim-only areas that muslims start in Australia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc? Where are they, since the religions are so similar?
Martin Rivers:
The reason many visitors to this site are so fearful is because Islamophobes seize the most threatening, offensive interpretation (ie that espoused by Al Qaeda) and hold it up as evidence that the Muslim faith is hellbent on annihilating the world. This is not true.
As usual, the problem is not Muslim aggression, the problem is that people are talking about it and being afraid of it. Would you also say that rapists are not a problem, only the women who report them to the police are?
Some Muslim clerics are jerks. Others are peace loving intellectuals.
No, they just appear to be peace-loving intellectuals. I have talked to a lot of so-called "moderate" Muslims, and their moderation is purely superficial.
I think people who live in multicultural environments such as London tend to be far receptive to this notion
It's precisely the "multicultural environments" in Europe that are so problematic, violent and unstable.
1. On my blog I report daily on suicide bombings and other atrocities perpetrated by Islamist terrorists. I do not at all think this news should be silenced - if I did, I wouldn't spend hours researching and writing about it.
Then what is the problem with Jihad Watch?
2. Time doesn't permit me to give a detailed breakdown of each individual article on this site, but here is my analysis of the top five posts on the blog. EVERY SINGLE ONE perpetuates an anti-Arab stance:
Why do you confuse Muslims with Arabs? They are not the same thing. This site is concerned with Muslims and Islam, not with Arabs.
*Those evil Zionists: Israeli hospital treats Gazans*
-> clear inference of sarcasm, read: 'anyone who thinks Israelis are bad people should consider this fantastic thing they're doing'
Do you mean to say that news reports contradicting the usual anti-Israel viewpoints should be silenced?
No room for debate is allowed
If no room for debate is allowed, how are you able to post here?
use of the word "plays" is clearly condescending.
Jihad Watch isn't a news agency, nor is it pretending to be one. They are allowed to be sarcastic and condescending.
There you have it. Four out of the top five articles have a CLEAR PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA. That is not unbiased reporting.
Who in this world is not biased? Scientists are biased, the news are biased, Robert Spencer is biased, I am biased, you are biased. Whenever Islamic apologists accuse this or that entity of being biased, they imply that they themselves are unbiased or represent people who are unbiased, which is ridiculous.
4. I've written in length about my opinion and I don't at all believe that I invoked the word "prejudice" as a "substitute for actual arguments". I am also familiar with the dictionary definition of the word, thank you, and I respectfully disagree with your assessment that I am ignorant.
I said you use the word because of ideology, not because of ignorance. There are a number of words that should probably just be removed from the English language because they've been abused beyond recognition by people like you.
Some Muslim clerics are jerks. Others are peace loving intellectuals.
LMAO. Which ones are "peace loving"?
If they follow the quran, they do not believe in peace.
It does not sound to me like you know much about Islam...Have you actually read the Quran or any Ahadith?...And once again, Do you believe Allah is God and Mohammad his messenger??
Posted by:
DUH_SWAMI: No I have not yet read the Quran in full. I fully intend to, along with the Bible and the Tora. And in response to your repeated insuations: no, I do not believe Allah is God and Mohammad his messenger. I am an Englishman of Austro-Hungarian descent - so it should come as little surprise that I am not a Muslim. I find it very, very disturbing that you seem intent on establishing my religion rather than engaging me with intelligent debate. Would the opinion of a Muslim be worth less to you?
ON MORAL EQUIVALENCY: A lot of you guys have raised this subject (possibly because the author associated with this blog has upheld it as one of his main arguments?). All I wish to say on the matter is this: I do not believe all parties are morally equivalent. If a man rapes a woman, even though the woman flirted with him incessantly - he is still a rapist. He is 100% wrong. If Nazi Germany oppresses its people while the US offers freedom to its people - Nazi Germany is in the wrong. It deserves military annihilation (if that is the only way to secure victory).
The crucial difference between those cases and the MidEast conflict is thus: ISRAEL IS NOT 100% RIGHT. Israel has a valid argument, and deserves statehood. But the Palestinians also have legitimate grievances, and likewise deserve statehood. If you invoke WW2 as justification for carpet bombing Gaza, you yourself are guilty of moral equivalency. The two cases are not equivalent - they are unique, and the solution to their problem lies in the DETAIL.
Now, we can engage with each other and shed light on our individual perspectives of the detail that makes up this complex conflict. Or... we can shun all those who disagree with us, and label moderates as 'trolls'. It's up to you.
One thing is clear: the MidEast conflict has raged on for 50 years. Both sides have tried brute violence - it has always failed. That is why I oppose Israel's disproportionate bombing of Gaza.
M
PS I am trying my best to respond to all your guys insults and provokations. I find it absolutely hilarious that you think I am a left-wing nutjob. I wasn't aware that left-wing people read the Economist and watch Fox News, as I do?
BTW, I am biased in favor of the civilized world, Israel included.
31:7, 14 - MR
I did a quick check on the Old Testament and did not find anything like what you wrote at 8.55pm. You are a deceptive little B.
What you cut & pasted here came from some unknown anti-Jewish site.
http://www.awitness.org/news/september_2001/zionism_racism.html
Deut. 21:10 "They waged war as god had commanded them and killedevery male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. 'So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse but keep the virginsfor yourself. Divide them up evenly.'"
MR - I don't think you are a real Martin Rivers. You are some J..k wasting our time here. Just go away will you!
"But the Palestinians also have legitimate grievances, and likewise deserve statehood. "
Israel isn't the one stopping them from building a nation. Why is it when the Jews fall back from any amount of land, leaving greenhouses for growing crops, the Palestinians destroy them and use them to smuggle weapons?
Why did Arafat reject 93% of his own land demands in the early 90s? Even if this wasn't everything, wouldn't it have been a useful springboard from which to get the remaining 7%?
Why do Palestinians spend money on rockets to launch at Jewish nurseries and hospitals, instead of building roads and infrastructure?
Why is Palestine the single most racist entity on the planet, if they are commited to living side by side with Jews?
Why is it that no matter how much the Jews offer, it never gets them any peace? Could it be the muslims are not actually interested in building a state but in killing Jews?
Martin Rivers:
I oppose Israel's disproportionate bombing of Gaza.
And I oppose subjecting Israel to arbitrary rules that other nations do not have to follow.
"PS I am trying my best to respond to all your guys insults and provokations. I find it absolutely hilarious that you think I am a left-wing nutjob. I wasn't aware that left-wing people read the Economist and watch Fox News, as I do?"
Oh Martin, I find you equally hilarious! Oh my, the Economist and Fox News, you're so balanced you're about to fall off your tolerant tightrope. I don't think you're a left-wing nut job. You're just a "fair-minded" well-intentioned dhimmi.
BUT PLEASE-Don't forget WHO started this whole mess in the middle-east! Why, it was none other than the Brits, for abandoning the philistines and letting the "un-fair" Jewish people run amok and take over the country. I, for one, am glad of it, are you?
I HAVE met east-Jerusalem arabs, (in beautiful Jerusalem) both muslim and Christian. It was an muslim arab male who said to me: "The fucking Israelis have made this a fucking country. As much as we hate them, they knew how to make this place a real country... We never could..."
Please stick around it's been such fun!
God bless Israel!
Jesus Christ Supercop:
I agree that mutlicultural societies have problems as well as benefits. Certainly, here in the UK we have a very potent threat of terrorism, as evidenced by the 07/07/05 bombings here in London. I also think, however, that the political engagement of disaffected Islamic communities that followed those attrocities is cause for optimism. As I understand it, the vast majority of mosques and Islamic communities in the UK now have close ties to the police and other religious authorities - they actively condemn extremist behaviour and they have helped the police by reporting numerous suspect individuals from within their midst. Here, engagement has led to a heightening of security in Britain. I believe that discrimination and distancing would have had an opposite effect.
1. My problem with Jihad Watch is not that it reports on terrorist events - far from it - rather it is that is presents its portrayal of these events in a very one-sided manner. Each post is crafted so as to exclusively present one side of the argument: debate appears to be actively discouraged (as evidenced by this threat), and moderation has been literally thrown out the window.
2. I used the word Arab because the MidEast conflict pits Arabs against Israelis. I didn't mean to detract from the religious focus of this discussion. You are correct that I should have said Muslim.
*Do you mean to say that news reports contradicting the usual anti-Israel viewpoints should be silenced?*
> Not at all. I would welcome a story such as this on its own(in fact I think it's a great story), but I find it very troubling that based on my breakdown 80% of the posts on this blog have a clear bias for Israel. I personally support Israel, as well, you know. But I support the Palestinians as well. If this website fails to present both sides of the coin, I believe it is failing in its duty to inform its readership.
*Who in this world is not biased? ... you are biased*
You're are correct to a degree. Everyone's opinion is subjective and everyone, once the dye has been cast, has a stance / viewpoint. The crucial difference is that I base my opinion of a reasoned interpretation of BOTH sides of the coin. I feel very much that this blog solely considers and perpetuates a pro-western Agenda. After visiting Jihad Watch for a few weeks, I have certainly never seen a post which begs the question 'Do Muslims have any legitimate grievances?'.
Jr: "Why is it no Christians or Jews are behaving like muslims?"
I think you will find that the Middle East conflict kicked off with a wave of Zionist bombings and assassinations targeted at the British occupiers as well as the Arab populace. Does that count as an example of Christians "behaving like muslims"?
"To all who contend that 'jihad' does not refer to inner 'struggle': you better pop over to Wikipedia and correct their egregious error! PS You all seem to suggest this subject is now 'out of bounds' - who ordained that I wonder? Perhaps the guy who is selling his books through this blog?"
Mr. Rivers, the interpretation of Jihad being an inner struggle is solely a Sufi interpretation. It isn't the classical understanding of the term which refers to holy war.
Furthermore, you feel Israel is using dispropotionate force because they've killed 280 people. But I ask you whose statistic is that? So far the media has only quoted Hamas for the casualty number, a group you've referred to as "hate-filled, murderous scumbags". Hate-filled, murderous scumbags but not possibly liars?
"The reason many visitors to this site are so fearful is because Islamophobes seize the most threatening, offensive interpretation (ie that espoused by Al Qaeda) and hold it up as evidence that the Muslim faith is hellbent on annihilating the world."
Now that's just silly. They're not our preferred interpretations. They're the interpreations used by the Chechnyans, the Filipino Muslim sepratists, Turkmenistan jihadists, Thai jihadists, the guys taking over Somalia, those committing genocide in Sudan and those who have beheaded Christian girls in Indonesia, etc. The list is huge and not limited to al-Qeda. Please spare us the lecture on Londoners somehow being more enlightened and cosmopolitian. I think a more apt description of your nation would be clueless and serville because you are either unable or unwilling to connect the dots between all the many conflicts in the world today involving the Muslims.
From the fair minded troll...I find it very, very disturbing that you seem intent on establishing my religion rather than engaging me with intelligent debate. Would the opinion of a Muslim be worth less to you?
I'm happy you are disturbed...If you get disturbed enough it might stimulate you to learn something.
This is the internet...Anyone can be anyone they want to be and say nearly anything they want to say.
Fraudulent characters with seedy motivations are everywhere. Mohammadans frequently try to disguise themselves as kufrs.
I don't think you are capable of a debate or even a serious discussion about jihad or Islam.
Politics maybe...Islam/Jihad? Sorry I don't think you are up to it...
I am not an Islamic expert or scholar, but I have read the Quran cover to cover twice and blogged it with Spencer...I have read so many hadith
it makes my head spin. I have read numerous books
and hundreds of articles, many by ex-muslims.
I have looked into the rulings and reasonings of Islamic schools on such subjects as apostasy and penalties for it. I have spent many hours 'daily' for nearly 'seven years', learning about Islam.
I read what Mohammadans write, I listen to what they say, and I watch what they do...
And guess what, I am a lightweight...Most of the posters here know far more about Islam than I.
If you have not studied or read the texts of Islam, you are not in a good position to defend it...especially here...
Better try to get more of those moral equivalencies across. They don't have much chance either, but at least you have some ground to debate on...
Ohhh Martin....
Please have a look at these pdfs and let me know if you think the muslim parliament members are being "fair-minded and tolerant" with their open declarations of hostility.
http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/InauguralAddress.pdf
http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/MuslimManifesto.pdf
You don't even need to read between the lines, they are very clear about their intentions. If you are an example of how Brits are thinking, then you're all doomed...
(Links thanks to Boneshack!)
duh_swami: look back to the beginning of this thread... my initial complaint was and still is that this blog does not tolerate dissent. It is a grossly biased website that I believe many people would correctly label a hate-site. There have been 50+ responses to my contribution, and not one person has voiced even the slightest degree of empathy with my views
Based on how things have unfolded: either I'm 100% wrong; or you guys are 100% intolerant
It's 3am - I'm outta here. I wish you all the best, M
duh_swami: look back to the beginning of this thread... my initial complaint was and still is that this blog does not tolerate dissent. It is a grossly biased website that I believe many people would correctly label a hate-site.
You have to have hate to be a hate site...That's just wishful thinking on your part.
This site tells the stinging truth about Jihad/ Islam and you call that hate. You are confused...
There is dissent here on a regular basis. Ever read Abdullah M, who appears here frequently with loads of dissent. And your being here with your dissent
makes you a liar...wait a minute, I will be a little more generous, it makes you dead wrong...
It looks to me that it is you who can't tolerate dissent, unless it is your dissent.
Well, I suppose you have gone beddy bye now...It's too early for that here...
Martin Rivers:
As I understand it, the vast majority of mosques and Islamic communities in the UK now have close ties to the police and other religious authorities - they actively condemn extremist behaviour and they have helped the police by reporting numerous suspect individuals from within their midst. Here, engagement has led to a heightening of security in Britain.
I'm not so sure.
1. My problem with Jihad Watch is not that it reports on terrorist events - far from it - rather it is that is presents its portrayal of these events in a very one-sided manner. Each post is crafted so as to exclusively present one side of the argument.
Again, Jihad Watch isn't a news agency or anything like that. It has a specific mission and a specific point of view.
Debate appears to be actively discouraged (as evidenced by this threat), and moderation has been literally thrown out the window.
There are certainly a lot of stupid people here, but I don't see how debate is really discouraged since anyone can post almost anything they want to. I suggest you visit sites where questioning and debating things are bannable offenses to see what it really means to discourage debate.
Not at all. I would welcome a story such as this on its own(in fact I think it's a great story), but I find it very troubling that based on my breakdown 80% of the posts on this blog have a clear bias for Israel. I personally support Israel, as well, you know. But I support the Palestinians as well. If this website fails to present both sides of the coin, I believe it is failing in its duty to inform its readership.
I don't think JW needs to be present the other side of the issue since it's already being presented everywhere else. The site doesn't exist in a vacuum. However, JW does frequently present opposing views for the purposes of denouncing or arguing against them.
You're are correct to a degree. Everyone's opinion is subjective and everyone, once the dye has been cast, has a stance / viewpoint. The crucial difference is that I base my opinion of a reasoned interpretation of BOTH sides of the coin. I feel very much that this blog solely considers and perpetuates a pro-western Agenda. After visiting Jihad Watch for a few weeks, I have certainly never seen a post which begs the question 'Do Muslims have any legitimate grievances?'.
I'm sure JW also bases its views on a reasoned interpretation of both sides of the coin. It's just that they keep reaching different conclusions than you do. Also note that your interpretation of things is affected by your biases.
Do Muslims have legitimate grievances? Maybe some, but they pale in comparison to the number of imaginary, unreasonable and self-inflicted grievances they continuously complain about.
Re. the normal meaning of jihad for Muslims, now and in the past: I have just been reading an excellent book by Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, 'Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam' (2007).
IF 'Martin Rivers' is what he says he is, and not a Muslim pretending to be what he ain't, then he should consult the first nine chapters of Dr Sookhdeo's book. As he reads, he should reflect that Dr Sookhdeo was raised a Muslim, and then converted to Christianity.
At the beginning of the book are four passages from Muslim source texts, contemporary and ancient, on Jihad.
Here is the first, from Majid Khadduri, Iraqi Muslim scholar and author of a classic study entitled 'War and Peace in the Law of Islam'.
It reads: "The jihad is the Islamic *bellum justum* and may be regarded as the very basis of Islam's relationship with other nations" (Preface to his book 'The Islamic Law of Nations: Shabyani's Siyar, Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins U Press, 1966, p. xi.)
Here is the second: "Jihad is the signature tune of Islamic history" - M J Akbar [The Shade of Swords, 2002, p. xvi].
The third: 'God {i.e. allah - dda} loves Muslims to be arrogant while fighting. It manifests that he is indifferent to the enemy and determined to vanquish him.' Abdullah Ghoshah ['The Jihad is the Way to Gain Victory', in D F Green, "Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel: Extracts from the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, Geneva, 1976, pp. 67-68].
Fourth: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have {i.e. they will have converted to Islam - dda}. Narrated by Anas ibn Malik, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635".
In addition, let us contemplate, from May 21 2008, an article written by a Muslim cleric (drawn from a Muslim website) that was published in the 'Pakistan Daily':
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021115.php
though it subsequently disappeared from the Pakistan Daily's website, for unknown reasons:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021127.php
Martin the 'fair' guy sez: If this website fails to present both sides of the coin, I believe it is failing in its duty to inform its readership.
How long did you say you have been reading this site?
Hamas, Islamic jihad, Al-Qaeda, The PA,
Iran, Hizbollah, and the whole bunch of them have had their views posted in articles right here.
And Spencer has posted his hate mail, and attacks on his knowledge, credibility and motivations, and threats on his life. How is that not presenting the 'other side'?...
You are failing in your duty to remain credible...
Ok it's not a duty, but it is desirable...
Martin Rivers,
Those Palestinian civilians put themselves into the situation by voting for Hamas and than supporting Hamas' driving the PA out.
THE COWARDLY PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS, WHETHER ARAFAT'S PLO OR HAMAS, HIDE AMONGST CIVILIANS !
It is the ARAB/ MUSLIM JIHADIS/IRANIANIANS who have kept it a War to the Death!
This Site is NOT FOR JIHADI KOOL-AID DRINKERS!
This Site is for REALISTS!
THIS SITE IS ON OUR FRONT-LINE!!
Thank You Robert,Hugh,Marisol, Raymond, and other Posters,et al.
my initial complaint was and still is that this blog does not tolerate dissent.
@ Martin Rivers,
If this blog doesn't tolerate dissent than why are your reactions posted????
If this blog didn't tolerate dissent your comments would have been erased by now, don't you think so??
I think that with statements like the one that "this blog does not tolerate dissent" you are exposing yourself to being nothing more than a fool.
Martin rivers said: There have been 50+ responses to my contribution, and not one person has voiced even the slightest degree of empathy with my views
Ohhh you poor thing. Did you come here to get some empathy????? Sorry mate, we do not have empathy for fools
MusHuntCowboy
that report from the Sikh doctor is ghastly - but unsurprising.
You see, in one of Bat Yeor's books, or else in one of Andrew Bostom's books, there is an account of Muslim jihadists sacking a conquered non-Muslim town - whether in India or in the Balkans I cannot recall at the moment (but I can look it up when I have an hour or so to go through the books) - who descended to that exact same depth of blasphemous perversion: cutting open the bellies of pregnant Infidel women, while those women were still alive, in order to take out the living foetuses and murder them 'hands-on'.
More human sacrifices for 'allah', that way...more tickets to paradise for the murderous Muslim psychopaths.
Islam makes even the thuggees and the Aztecs look tame.
Dr A Carlebach had it to rights when, discussing Islam and what it does to its adherents, he wrote:
‘The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world,
the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood,
from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting,
and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world..." (Ma'ariv Oct 7 1955).
'Blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilised world'.
Q. E. D, in the Chabad House, Mumbai, November 2008.
"There have been 50+ responses to my contribution, and not one person has voiced even the slightest degree of empathy with my views"
-- a quote from a poster, Martin Rivers, above
I'd like to make that 51 expressions of complete "non-empathy" with the views of Martin Rivers, beginning with his dreamy belief in the existence of a "Palestinian people" who were fashioned after the Six-Day War out of the local Arabs in order to re-package the Lesser Jihad against Israel as something it was not, and never had been, and is not now -- that is, as a "national liberation" struggle of this "Palestinian people" (see Zuhair Mohsen on the origin of the phrase, a phrase never used, not once, by any Arab ruler or diplomat or spokesman before the Six-Day War).
The Arabs, who were stunned at the June 1967 defeat and the magnitude of Israel's victory, realized that they would need diplomatic support from the West, and in order to obtain it, they would have to turn military defeat into propaganda victory. And they did so, by calling the Arabs in Gaza and the "West Bank" the "Palestinian people" (and then all kinds of absurdities followed, as a group of Arabs identical in religion, language, culture right down to the last fairy tale and supposed folk dance, began to be subject to that "construction of a 'Palestinian' identity that the rashid-khalidis and joel-beinins of this world have made their professional activity -- busy, busy, busy), and then getting the Israelis, ever inattentive to language, to start using the absurd phrase themselves.
Martin Rivers appears to believe that we should "sympathize" with that group of Arabs who have been used, and are happy to be used, as the shock troops of the Jihad to destroy the Infidel nation-state of Israel. Why? Why shouldn't we save our sympathy, if we are to have any left over after we have given it to the Jews of Israel, who consist almost entirely of those who survived either the Nazis and other diaboligcal persecutions in Europe, or survived centuries of chattel slavery or other forms of persecution, humiliiation, and degradation as dhimmis in the Arab and other Muslim lands. Why should we ahve the slightest sympathy for this group of Muslim Arabs who exist on the dole of UNRWA, who make no move to improve their own lot, and who are consumed with hatred, and a desire to destroy? And why should we have sympathy to expend on this or that group of Muslim Arabs who, always and everywhere, have humiliatied, persecuted, even mass-murdered, all the many non-Arab and non-Muslim peoples in their midst, from the Berbers to the Kurds, to the black Africans of the southern Sudan and of Darfur?
No, there's not a wet eye in this house. And I suspect the numbers of those in the West still willing to accept the Arab and Muslim propaganda about the "Palestinian people" is diminishing rapidly, as the meaning, and menace, of Islam has become clearer, and as so many are begiinning to look around at the daily Jihad News From All Over, and beginnig to find out - the texts are a click away-- what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. And the articulate apostates, such as Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, have also now brought their own convincing testimony, that once heard, cannot be unheard.
No, Martin Rivers, you've come to a site where there are too many, I fear, of the well-prepared, for the usual nonsense to be endured.
And there's one more problem with the intervention of the poster above, a problem that, alas, is forever with us: La betise s'est mise a penser. At the very least, la betise should not be given a forum. It should have, in every case, its own individual blogspot, so no one else need hear it, or even be forced to endure an indadvertent eavesdropping.
You guys will believe anything. I have been keeping up to date on all the news coming out of the region. In reality the Zionist monsters must be doing some kind of naziesque experiments on these unsuspecting members of the glorious islamic Arab nation!
Posted by: CJK
What have you been smoking??? Because after reading your posting i have to conclude that it must be some pretty strong stuff.
Rammer! You're dastardly...lol..
I took that cjk to be completely tongue-in-cheek with sarcasm dripping. Try it that way, it's much better and easier to ignore... lol....
Stupidity is my incomprehension of Hugh's French phrases.
Martin Rivers attempting to convince anyone here of the correctness of his views is akin to someone trying to look "objectively" at democracy on the one hand and Marxism or fascism on the other to a gathering honoring Thomas Jefferson.
Martin RIvers is ignorant of the Qur'an, the hadiths, and Mohammad's biography and yet he holds forth, demanding 'equal time' for what he calls 'arabs'. OK -- every time there's a documentary on the Holocaust, should equal time be given to Nazism and its benefits? Should a documentary on the Civil Rights movement be 'balanced' by interviews with the Klan's Grand Wizard giving tips on how to terrorise and lynch black Americans? Evil doctrines must be exposed and dealt with.
What a worthless troll!
Instead of making immoral equivocations and pestering us about not being "fair" to the Fakestinians he seeks 'empathy'-, because we stand with the Jews? Am I the only one here who smells da'awa sulphur?
Troll, be gone!
"Some Muslim clerics are jerks. Others are peace loving intellectuals."
Name ONE!
Want empathy? You can find some here:
It Gets Hard When They Cheer
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/568wyhef.asp
Part Two of Larry Miller’s account of his trip to Israel is now at the Weekly Standard: "It Gets Hard When They Cheer". The conclusion will bring tears to your eyes:
Downstairs, before we left, the head of the hospital, an Israeli named Audrey, was showing me the children's waiting room. I couldn't help but notice, all around, an Arab woman with her son, an Arab family over there checking in, Arab children playing with the toys while waiting. The doctor saw the look on my face and laughed. "Oh, yes, we treat everyone." I guess I was astonished. She just shrugged. "We're Jews. This is how we live. It's also for the future. They're not going anywhere, and we're not going anywhere. There will eventually be peace. There has to be." When? A month? A year? A hundred years? More? She didn't know. I had to say it. You're incredible. You take everyone, you treat everyone, no one goes first, no one goes last, you just go in order of who needs help. That's, like, Mother Teresa stuff.
"We're not saints, we're just doing our jobs. It's not easy, I admit. And it gets hard when they cheer when the bodies are brought in." I looked at her. What did you say? She sighed. "Yes, it gets hard when they cheer."
This was one of the times during my trip when I held up my hands and said, "Stop. Wait." I turned and walked away to breathe deeply for a minute. I wonder if they've restocked that mini-bar. Yeah, probably. It's a good hotel.
I didn't meet one Jew the whole trip who didn't think there would be peace, not one. "We can work it out. We have to. They're not going anywhere. Neither are we."
Of course, it gets hard when they cheer.
I guess it does.
"I think you will find that the Middle East conflict kicked off with a wave of Zionist bombings and assassinations targeted at the British occupiers as well as the Arab populace. Does that count as an example of Christians "behaving like muslims"?"
Not really. How is it supposed to? Were these Jews waving the Torah or Talmud in front of cameras when they did this, or was this legitimate in light of the fact that the British openly prevent Jews from defeding themselves from Arabic hit squads that were killing Jews on land they had recently purchased from Turkish Effendis?
Are you capable of producing even one Torah or Gosepl motivated suicide bombing? The religions are so similar, why can't you flood me with examples of Christi and and Jews murdering in the name of their holy books?
Here, let's play a game. List every Christian or Jewish religion-motiavted crime you can find. For every one you list, I will provide ten (10) links to crimes muslims commit in the name of their god.
Wellington wrote:
Martin Rivers: Insults? No, just stating things as they are. When a moral equivalizer asserts his moral equivalency, such a person needs to be read the riot act. One of the great stupidities of our age is moral equivalency thinking (e.g., silly Cold War logic: sure the USSR has its faults, but so does the USA; therefore one must be equally critical of both). It's not only wrong, but what's just as bad is that the moral equivalizer actually thinks, in most every instance, that he is above those who have convictions about things like civilization versus anti-civilization------ah, he's fair, impartial and wise.
.................
Excellent observations, Wellington. In fact, when one engages in moral equivalency between evil and decency, the result is *not* fair or neutral--it is a grave insult to decency, and an unearned benefit to evil.
Martin Rivers wrote:
My problem with Jihad Watch is not that it reports on terrorist events - far from it - rather it is that is presents its portrayal of these events in a very one-sided manner.
.................
Again, moral equivalency. Mr. Rivers seems to think that, in order to avoid being "one-sided", that is it necessary to present something positive about terrorism. I believe there are any number of Jihadi sites that will wax eloquent about "glorious shahids" (or valient "freedom" fighters, if one prefers).
I did check out Mr. Rivers' site--called Riverscrap. (I'm not sure if one is supposed to read that as "River's crap", or not.)
He does post reports on Jihad attacks, in some cases the same articles that have appeared here at JW. But they are posted entirely without comment--so, whether Mr. Rivers finds them appalling, or just interesting news, or as actions he is deeply sympathetic to, is anyone's guess.
JW makes it very clear that it *is not* in sympathy with Jihad--not its sickening violence, not its glorification of death, not its intention of imposing brutal Shari'ah law, and not its intention of subjugating non-Muslims. I consider that stance brave and principled--not "one-sided".
Marisol--excellent post. You eloquence is much appreciated.
What Martin has failed to do is present any kind of point that stands up to scrutiny. While pretending to dislike moral equivalency, his failure to frame his arguments in anything else spells his doom.
I just got back to see the comments and noticed that many people missed the sarcasm. My apologies. The funny thing (or not so funny) is how authentic it sounds to everyone even though I felt the sarcasm was obvious. Just goes to show the extent of the obvious horseshit we're subjected to by these devil worshipers and their lackeys.
CJK,
I didn't miss the sarcasm, but you played it so straight that only your purposely clunky verbosity gave you away--so you, too, are a Brother and struggler yearning for noble martyrdom?
I would like to be fair, like so many people.
It gives me hope when in the midst of the conflict and the propaganda that doctors still treat patients as patients and not in an adversarial friend/foe dichotomy.
I would love to see some people that want to push moderation, tolerance, and fairness put forth some articles where Mahometans have saved the lives of people not of their own religious group.
Once in a while there will be some news posted here that is not of the never ending jihadi frothings, I do not think that its rarity is as much an editorial decision as it is that such news is rare.
Sometimes, when the news is all bad, some people have a tendency to blame the messenger for disturbing their fond illusions.
There is one more comment, on all the many threads on this site, this one about Israeli doctors treating some of the wounded from Gaza to me tends to be one of the more uplifting threads.
The result might also affirm the saying of doing good to your enemy heaps coals of fire on his head, I wonder how many of those treated will feel gratitude and thanks to those doctors who worked to fix them up.
Maybe a few will consider that not all their so called enemies actually dwell in the same cesspool of hatred that they live in.
Martin Rivers is a tin horn.
"When Stupidity Began to Think"
That's a keeper. Thanks, Hugh!
From Martin Rivers:
"After visiting Jihad Watch for a few weeks, I have certainly never seen a post which begs the question 'Do Muslims have any legitimate grievances?"
Which means he thinks they do.
Now which 'legitimate grievances' would that be? That infidels refuse to bow to their demands and reject the implementation of sharia? That Jews refuse to be dhimmies and will not be humiliated, spat upon, raped, plundered and annihilated at will by Muslims in their ancestral homeland?
Yes, fellows, in the blinkered mindset and drafty worldview of our friends like Martin, being intolerant of intolerance, and biased against the hateful and atrocious, makes us all bigots and makes our forum a hatefest. Yeah, really. Like, for sure.
Sometime when you have the time, find yourself the recording of the Brigette Gabriel interview, where she recounts being treated by the Israelis in an Israeli hospital, after a childhood of being taught that Jews are evil dirt.
It ought to be on the American Congress for Truth site, or perhaps on Atlas Shrugs.
=========
Need I say that this story is also a stark contrast to the Egyptians firing on fleeing arabs coming out of Gaza.
Death cult is what I say.
Martin Rivers,
Having just caught up on the above exchanges of views, I would like to add:
I for one do empathise with you if that helps.Or even if not.
Not because I agree with you entirely, or even very much, but because you seem like an intelligent person with a genuine spirit of inquiry who is looking for answers to pertinent questions.
Also I recall those earlier stages of my own education in Islamic matters when I was inclined to doubt the role of Islam in terrorism and other evils and to accept other more plausible-seeming explanations. Revelation and realization of truths which go against previously held beliefs can be slow and difficult.
Hope you stick around, read everything on here, as well as, I suggest, anything by R Spencer, selections from Hughs' reading list; and especially 'the life of Muhammad' by Ibn Ishaq. The latter is an extraordinary corroboration from an original source of everything on this site. Available cheaply and easily from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230656680&sr=1-2
As an atheist I have difficulty with some of the views here but that is of little importance. The big issue of Islamic Jihad is what really matters.
Good luck and keep coming back to chat some more.
PS See Marisol at 7.58 on the 28th above for a sound viewpoint.