Alabama jihadi: "Despite the fact that you have been ... forced [by Muslim fighters] to at least pretend to extend your hand in peace to the Muslims, we cannot and shall not extend our hands"

"... Hammami would tell others 'he was not fulfilled by his Baptist experience.'"

No doubt those killjoy Baptists told him he couldn't rape any non-Baptist girl that he wanted, nor could he steal anything he wanted from non-Baptists, nor that he could kill his sister for dating a non-Baptist boy. Baptists just aren't much fun.

A week after the 9/11 attacks, a young Muslim at the University of South Alabama told the school's newspaper it was "difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this."

Now, eight years later, he is professing to launch attacks himself and calling on others to join the fight
.................

So--was this just a particularly blatant example of Taqiyya, or did he just go to embrace "pure Islam", as he had already become a Muslim, like his father?

more:

"The only reason we're staying here away from our families, away from the cities, away from, you know, ice, candy bars, all these other things..."

Would "those other things" include decency, democracy, and the rule of law? Or does this idiot think the only thing he left behind in "Amriki" are *candy bars*?

"Rather, we shall extend to you our swords, until you leave our lands."

Make no mistake, to him (and Islam) "our lands" comprise the ENTIRE WORLD.

GravenImage - I wouldn't be surprised if that is, in fact, what he thinks the West is all about - ice and candy bars.

GravenImage - I wouldn't be surprised if that is, in fact, what he thinks the West is all about - ice and candy bars.
.............

True, Spirit Wolf.

What else do we learn about America from this article? Here is how this future Jihadist was accepted at school:

"It was kind of odd just because it had never been done before," Brooks said. "There weren't many Muslims that went to Daphne High School. He basically just went outside, and you'd see him kneeling and praying as Muslims do."

She said, "Everybody was really accepting of it."
.............

And this was in supposedly 'backward' and 'racist' *rural Alabama*.

In fact, he seems to have a rather low opinion of Western tolerance in general. This, his response to President Obama's famous "open hand" speech:

"Despite the fact that you have been ... forced [by Muslim fighters] to at least pretend to extend your hand in peace to the Muslims, we cannot and shall not extend our hands," al-Amriki said in an audiotape. "Rather, we shall extend to you our swords, until you leave our lands."
.............

Clearly, he considers this merely a sign of weakness on the part of the West--a caving in to Muslim violence, and nothing more.

"Brooks said Hammami would take time out from classes throughout the day to pray."

Some will say there is no harm in allowing someone to pray in school (or other places such as on the job, in the store, or on the bus)...but it has become very clear that Muslims pray for violence and they demand that everyone allow them to pray 5 times a day wherever they may be. And whenever Muslims coerce non Muslims to submit to allowing them to publicly violence invaribly ensues....there certainly must be something about what a Muslim prays for..

It has been many years since the leftist "politically correct" whackos banned Christians from praying in school, raised holy hell when school athletic teams prayed on the field and suspended students who prayed befored tests in schools and cried "foul" when students are found to be reading the Bible in school.

It becomes apparent that there is a stink in the air when Muslims are allowed to pray in school with no objection and Muslims as this one did tend to pray for violence and even admitted to it and Christians are banned from praying in school...Christians tend to pray for a good test grade, saftey on the sports field and for peace and understanding...

Is there any doubt why the world seems to be really stinking today?...and just what is wrong with Christians praying in school...they let the Muslims do it..

To : djrz

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

" submit to allowing them to publicly violence invaribly"

s/b submit to allowing them to publicly pray violence invaribly

"Everybody was really accepting of it."

Here is the problem.

loveverybody, the one thing I find with Muslims is that they NEVER tire of blaming others for the problems of the World. You got to realise EXCUSES are like a*seholes EVERYONE'S got one, seems to me though Muslims have more than their fair share though.

Ladies and gentlemen, observe: loveverybody is *still* spamming with the same threadbare list of excuses trumped-up to distract our attention from the real, traditionally Quranic and Islamic motivations of Al Qaeda and of all other jihad outfits.

Memo to any new readers who are not familiar with this kind of thing - look up Raymond Ibrahim, 'The Al Qaeda Reader'.

loveverybody, FDR ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save the lives of thousands of people,both American and Japanese because in an invasion of the Japanese mainland the death toll would have been horrendous.End of History lesson.You-lovenobody are full of sh*t !

To loveverybody:

Really? You want to go there?

Do we need to review the 1400 years of Islamic genocide, unprovoked colonialism, slavery to this day? Do we need to review the hundreds of millions of souls killed by the followers of a seventh century megolomaniac pervert? Do we need to review the stealing of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and many other religion's land, possessions, homes, and children? Should we expose lists of Islam motivated killings even in the last ten years that FAR exceed any U.S. or Western caused Muslim deaths in the last fifty?

What about the fact that some of the things you mentioned are already recognized by most in the west as worthy of regret and sometimes reparations? Where are the Muslim apologies and reparations for what they have done?

When will Islam agree to leave all the CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, HINDU, and other lands that have been stolen over the centuries?

What about all the insults and desecrations to the holy sites and objects of other religions by Muslims? Where are the apologies and reparations for that?

And let us not forget the HORRORS visited on women with the sanction of Islamic law.

Does Osama want to WHINE about injustice? Since when does ANY Muslim need an excuse other than the Quran to kill kuffars, rape their women, steal their land, destroy their places of worship, enslave their children, and remove their YHWH given rights?

TO: dumbledoresarmy

Do you believe that the world was better off before Islam ?

When "Judaism" was the only religion in the world, 100% of mankind sinned against God ( both Adam and Eve sinned against God)

and 1/4 of "mankind" murdered his own brother ( Cain killed Abel )

Its a fact that non-muslims have killed more people by the hundreds of millions compared to any genocide committed by muslims (eg the European, Russian, Communist, Cambodian, Rwanda and Chinese genocides )

If Islam never existed, the world will still be full of violence

Reacher stated :

FDR ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save the lives of thousands of people,both American and Japanese because in an invasion of the Japanese mainland the death toll would have been horrendous.End of History lesson.You-lovenobody are full of sh*t !

Comment :

Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

President Truman's USSB survey:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated (end of excerpt)

US General Dwight D. Eisenhower,

US General Douglas MacArthur,

US Brigadier General Carter Clarke,

and US Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet

all said that the A-bomb should not have been used since Japan was already defeated.

US Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff STATED : " wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

H. Arnold, US General : " bomb or no bomb, Japan was on the verge of collapse."

If President Truman truly cared about saving lives, he would have urged FDR to call for a cease fire as early as August of 1944 when Japan was negotiating concessions to the Russians after Tojo resigned due to the Japan being already defeated as early as July 1944.

Even Churchill said that demanding unconditional surrender will result in more lives lost as the Japanese Govt will fight to the death.

If FDR/HST truly cared about the lives of US soldiers, US/Allied POWs in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children

they would have called for a cease fire as early as 8/44 while the J. Govt was defeated and negotiating concessions to the communists.

FDR helped communism expand in Asia by demanding unconditional surrender which in turn made the Japanese to want to negotiate with the communists while the powerful owners of the US military/industrial complex "laughed all the way to the bank" because the longer the war continued after August 1944, the more the profits to the US military/industrial complex

War is not all about saving lives or even genocides or even about going after the criminals who started the war as evidenced by the main militarist/terrorist Hirohito and his Unit 731 being allowed to go free.

War is about money and power at both the local and international levels.

That is why when Truman ordered the fire/atom bombings of Japan, he was not thinking about saving either American lives or the lives of US/Allied POWs in Japan who were terrorized and burned alive by the US fire/atom bombs nor was the atom bomb about saving Japanese lives but war is mostly about the power agendas of politicians and the profit agenda of Truman's friends in the military/industrial complex.

Profiting on the blood of the innocent is evil

The invasion of Japan was not necessary.

As early as the summer of 1944. the US govt already knew that Japan was defeated and that is why the US was asking for unconditional surrender which it never asked of either N. Vietnam or N. Korea.

Tojo's resignation and Japan giving concessions to Stalin should have made FDR co-opt Hirohito on the side of the US instead of allowing communism to expand.

But FDR did not care about the lives of US soldiers, US/Allied POWs in J. and the lives of hundreds of thousands of J. children.

What did the unconditional surrender achieve ?

It achieved the terrorist hirohito still remaining in power and the destruction of japan enabled communism to expand in China resulting in as many as 78 million chinese dying at the hands of the communists.

Was it worth terrorizing, torturing and burning alive hundreds of thousands of children ?

Both the US govt and the Japanese govt terrorized children

And the US govt in the end let the main terrorist Hirohito/Unit 731 go free

Since Japan was weak enough for a total blockade, why not accept a cease fire since Hirohito was going to remain in power anyway.

The destruction of Japan allowed communism to thrive in Asia resulting in the cold war and the deaths of over a hundred thousand US soldiers, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life and the deaths/maiming of over a hundred million civilians

A US Naval/air blockade with the promise that the US govt would not invade Japan would have allowed the J militarists to disarm

The Japanese govt were crashing planes into our ships because the US govt was wanting an unconditional surrender and wanting to occupy the Japanese homeland.

If the Japanese govt was wanting to occupy the US homeland, I am sure the US govt would not give up either.

But FDR/Truman did not care about saving lives but rather intent on terror

All wars can be prevented but the profit agendas of govts/MIC make war inevitable.

To : djrz

Do you believe that the world was better off before Islam ?

When "Judaism" was the only religion in the world, 100% of mankind sinned against God ( both Adam and Eve sinned against God)

and 1/4 of "mankind" murdered his own brother ( Cain killed Abel )

Its a fact that non-muslims have killed more people by the hundreds of millions compared to any genocide committed by muslims (eg the European, Russian, Communist, Cambodian, Rwanda and Chinese genocides )

If Islam never existed, the world will still be full of violence

"Its a fact that non-muslims have killed more people by the hundreds of millions compared to any genocide committed by muslims (eg the European, Russian, Communist, Cambodian, Rwanda and Chinese genocides )

If Islam never existed, the world will still be full of violence"

Are you that ignorant?

Because Islam has existed, the world IS still full of violence.

You forgot the Muslim genocide in the Indian subcontinent (pre and post Crusades). THAT was approaching the hundreds of millions by itself.

Have you ever heard of Bangladesh?

Have you ever heard of Armenia?

Do you know that the English word for "slave" comes from SLAV because of the slave raids by MUSLIMS into eastern Europe?

Muslims have killed many times the Christians and Jews than Hitler EVER killed. And those deaths PALE in comparison to the Hindus that have been slaughtered by Muslims.

There is no religion in the WORLD who has encouraged and caused more killing, slavery, subjugation, and conquest than Islam.

This very year there have been thousands of Islam caused deaths.

You must get your facts from your outhouse pit, because nothing can justify your distortion of history but some sort of toxic fumes.

djrz stated :

Because Islam has existed, the world IS still full of violence.

Comment :

Before the advent of islam, non-muslim religions like judaism would commit genocide on entire tribes of people,including women, children and babies, especially those in the "promised land" (Deut. 20:16)

After the advent of islam, non-muslims committed genocide by the hundreds of millions compared to those committed by muslims (example : the european, russian, cambodian, congo, rwanda and chinese genocides )

djrz stated :

You forgot the Muslim genocide in the Indian subcontinent (pre and post Crusades). THAT was approaching the hundreds of millions by itself.

Comment :

There were not enough people in India for the muslims to commit the genocide of hundreds of millions.

Different population estimates by economic historian Angus Maddison show that India's total population, including adherents of all religions, did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but increased by about 35 million, from 75 million to 110 million, during that time.

"loveverybody" clearly won't be convinced by reason (which of necessity includes facts). Trying to argue with him directly is like trying to argue with a broken toaster.

Arguing with the deformed paradigm he articulates, however, is educational as a spectacle for other readers to see and digest. A closely related by-product of arguing with him, and additionally helpful for this pedagogy, is the re-presentation of his paradigm through its critique, for that paradigm is not his own personal unique little twisted view of the world, but is a widespread paradigm embraced more or less by millions around the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims, a paradigm that crudely combines the anti-West gnosticism of certain Westerners themselves, with the unique type of gnosticism called Islam. This is not to imply that millions of Westerners are consciously colluding with jihadism: only that they share many of the same features and talking points in their common hatred of the West. It would be interesting to know whether Muslims have -- either by osmosis in the last century through their historically unprecedented penetration through immigration into the West -- appropriated from the West the structure of the Western paradigm of anti-Western self-hatred; for the resemblances on many points are striking. Of course, Muslims hate the West from a purely Islamic point of view, seen in their eyes as a "Roman Empire of Jewish-Christian Crusaders", and they have hated it thusly from the beginning, 1400 years ago, to the present. But for some reasons yet undetermined, they seem to have accepted from the Infidels -- the self-hating Infidels, that is -- a paradigm that gives to that hatred a particular form and structure constituted by many interlocking factoids and tendentious interpretations. Perhaps Muslims do this out of cleverness, recognizing the enormous tactical advantage this provides them in the "jihad of the pen", to use the West's own self-hatred against the West.

And, as I implied earlier in my paragraph above, Muslims don't simply adopt the Western anti-Western paradigm in toto, but supplement it with their own Islamic values, foremost being their militant supremacism and their eschatology -- values which we find are appealing, in fact, to a still small, but disturbingly growing, minority of disaffected Western Leftists who "cross over": for those Islamic values provide the Western anti-Western paradigm with the additional meaning of life, organization of a fantasy-society, and inspiration to fight for a cause -- a cause that, to the delight of the pathological Leftists, they have discovered is virulently hateful of the West -- that has been lost with the collapse of the Communist dream. And for additional spice, this global movement, Islam, is "ethnic" and thus untainted by the eternal stain of evil White Guilt (one of the main thorns in the side of the anti-Western Westerner: "If only I could cut out the White West in me!" cries the Leftist in his existential anguish. Well, now he can do this: by joining Islam and transforming his white Western self into a Honorary Brown Noble Savage -- a Muslim -- in a global Family of brothers and sisters united in this cause to bring Revolutionary "justice" to the world).

Isn't it amazing that a poster who has adopted the username "loveverybody" is an apologist for terrorism?

I suppose it's rather like referring to Islam as "the Religion of Peace".

Hesperado stated :
in their common hatred of the West.

Comment :

Nobody hates the west.

Even Osama Bin Laden stated that if he truly hated the west, he would have attacked Sweden because ( in his opinion) Sweden is the most liberal or hedonistic of western societies.

People hate the corrupt foreign policies of the US govt.

Hesperado stated :

anti-Western self-hatred;

Comment :

Nobody in the west hates himself. What we do hate is the corrupt foreign policies of the US govt that results in blowback and even a yearly trillion dollar "defense" budget does not keep us safe or secure, as evidenced by the attacks on 9/11 by 19 hijackers who penetrated all our trillion dollar defenses with box-cutters and a half million dollar budget.

Hesperado stated :
Muslims hate the West from a purely Islamic point of view,

Comment :

Muslims don't hate the west, but many of them do hate the foreign policies of the US govt that provides the weapons of death to dictators in the middle east and to the Israeli govt that in turn use those very US weapons to collaterally kill children and babies

Hesperado stated :

they have hated it thusly from the beginning, 1400 years ago, to the present.

Comment :

Nations, both "christian" and muslim have been going to war with each other and going to war amongst themselves for centuries, not because of hate but because of power and money.

Yes, "christian" nations and muslim nations will use religion as a reason/excuse for war but its all about money and power while talking about freedom and patriotism as the rich and powerful send the poor and powerless to their deaths, all in the name of freedom and patriotism.

Hesperado stated :

to use the West's own self-hatred against the West.

Comment :

Nobody in the west or the east hate the west, but they do hate the corrupt relationship between the US govt and the bloated, corrupt, wasteful, greedy military/industrial pork laden corporate welfare entitlement complex

Hesperado stated :

virulently hateful of the West --

Comment :

Nobody hates the west, but they do hate the fact that the puppet politicians of the military/industrial complex are giving away 68 cents of every hard earned tax dollar to the military/industrial complex and thus depriving the average American of a better, cheaper and healthier standard of living

Hesperado stated :

"If only I could cut out the White West in me!" cries the Leftist in his existential anguish.

Comment :

Nobody wants to cut out the "white" west in them but they do want to cut the corrupt relationship between the US govt and the military/industrial complex so that foreign policy can be be pragmatic, cost effective, diplomatic and with the use of cheap covert operations to police the world

Hesperado stated :
Well, now he can do this: by joining Islam and transforming his white Western self into a Honorary Brown Noble Savage -- a Muslim -- in a global Family of brothers and sisters united in this cause to bring Revolutionary "justice" to the world).

Comment :

Joining Islam is not what people in the west want to do, but they do want to join forces with all reasonable people to break the monopoly of the democrats/republicans in the US govt by forming a third party in order to have more pragmatic, intelligent and diplomatic foreign policies while using cheap covert operations to police the world and prevent truly dangerous criminals from acquiring power

Gravenimage stated :

Isn't it amazing that a poster who has adopted the username "loveverybody" is an apologist for terrorism?

I suppose it's rather like referring to Islam as "the Religion of Peace".

Comment :

Apologist ?

Can you point to any of my discussions where I said the terrorists did the right thing ?

Explaining the motivations of terrorists is not the same as agreeing with them, just as a therapist or psychiatrist or prosecutor explains the motivations behind any murder does not mean they are justifying the actions of those criminals.

The US govt invaded Iraq due to the "reason" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction : is that statement a statement apologizing for the actions of the US govt or is that statement revealing the motives behind the unnecessary invasion of Iraq ?

Explaining motives is not the same as being an apologist.

Even religions of peace can be used to justify war so it does not matter whether a religion is for war or not.

For example, there is nothing in Christianity that justifies war, but President Truman said that the war with Japan was a war between christianity and paganism.

Yes, I do love everybody, even those in the corrupt military/industrial complex and their puppets in the US govt and the way I show my love is by showing them the error of their ways

Memo to any person new to this site and to the subject who may be in any way confused or distracted by the comments of the poster calling itself 'loveverybody':

FROM JIHADWATCH DISCUSSION THREAD, 4 August 2009.

"In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world".

"Lebanese Islamists in Favor of 'Offensive Jihad' to Conquer the World and Impose Islam," from MEMRI, July 21 2009.

'Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by members of the Islamist group Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 21, 2009.

“In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world.”
- Muhammad Ibrahim, member of the advisory council of Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon'.

And again, for the benefit of those non-Muslim readers but newly come on board, who are reading this today or may come across it in future.

There is an American convert to Islam named Jeff Lang who for some weird reason thinks Islam *ought* to be a religion of peace. He wrote a book called 'Even Angels Ask'.

A jihadwatch poster who has read this book, recently shared with us at this forum the following very illuminating excerpts from it:

'[says Jeff Lang] Almost all Muslim religious leaders ... uphold the classical dar al Islam/dar al harb concept ... This poses a very difficult personal dilemma for many converts, because it seems to them that to become a Muslim, they are required to become enemies of their own countries. (p. 119)

'And Lang writes of his own experience attending a Muslim lecture at an American mosque in the early 80s:

[QUOTE] The second lecture was given by Hisham, a very bright medical student who had been studying in America for almost two years. I [Jeff] liked and respected Hisham very much...

'Hisham spoke that night about a Muslim's duties and responsibilities... His speech was very moving and had been running about an hour when he closed it with the following unexpected and stern remark.

'"Finally, we must never forget--and this is extremely important--that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government--anywhere in the world--in order to replace it by an Islamic one."

'"Hisham!" I interrupted. "Are you implying that Muslim American citizens are to commit themselves to the destruction of the U.S. government?--That they are to be a fifth column in America--a secret revolutionary group seeking to overthrow the government? Do you mean that when an American converts to Islam he must commit himself to political treason?!"

'I [Jeff] thought that by presenting Hisham with a very extreme scenario, it would force him to soften or qualify his statement. He looked down at the floor as he pondered my question momentarily. Then he looked at me with an expression that reminded me of a doctor about to break the news to his patient that his tumor is malignant.

"Yes," he said. "Yes, that's true." (p. 117). END QUOTE.

And the Alabama jihadi in the featured article, and the North Carolina jihad gang, show that the mindset Lang reports as having been taught by 'Hisham' is clearly being communicated and taken to heart.

And some more information, also relayed by a former poster at this forum:

"On 8 July [2005?] the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled ‘Islam, Faith and Power’.

'The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) should be established throughout the world.

'All is supported with quotations from the Koran. It concludes with a veiled threat to Britain.

'The bombings the previous day were a perfect illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is widely read and distributed across the UK."

- Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 21, 2005 1:07 AM

And for yet more illumination, a straight-down-the-line orthodox article about Jihad 'Clarifying the meaning of jihad' that appeared in May 2008 in a Pakistani newspaper online; was spotted, and copied, and discussed, here; and was then, the cat being presumably seen by the Muslims to have escaped from the bag, pulled from its original source and replaced with something innocuous...but alas, the kafir had already seen and photographed the cat.

All non-Muslims new to this forum and new to the subject of Islam, reading these my words now (September 2009) or in future, are strongly advised to peruse that article, conveniently archived here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021115.php

and be sure to scroll down and peruse the comments afterward, all the way to the end.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

As for the rates of murder in 'most' Muslim countries being lower than in western countries...does anyone here believe that a country like Somalia, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or for that matter Saudi Arabia, or even Turkey, is able to keep, or even wants to keep, more accurate police records than, say, Australia, or the UK, or the USA?

Comment :

Even if the police records are not accurate in muslim countries, the fact still remains that the record of husbands and boyfriends killing women in the US is dismal.

Man's inhumanity to man does not depend on islam; in fact, non-muslims have through wars and world wars have killed hundreds of millions of people more than any genocide committed in muslim countries.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Shall we raise the topic of rape?...given the bizarre Islamic 'laws' about rape, one *has* to assume that the vast majority of rapes carried out in the Muslim world go unreported, for a girl who tells anyone she's been raped is highly likely to be 'punished' for it by being 'honor' murdered...by her own ever-lovin' family. And if her family doesn't kill her, well, if she's lucky, she might end up flogged, or imprisoned -

Comment :

rape occurs in all societies and is not confined to the muslim society.

Yes, rape is handled differently in muslim societies than in non-muslim societies but it is logical to assume that rapes in muslim societies is not as frequent as in non-muslim societies for the fact that muslim girls usually lead sheltered lives and a potential rapist has more access to a non-muslim girl than a muslim girl.

During the Vietnam war, US soldiers had easier access to Vietnamese girls than US soldiers have access to muslim girls in Afghanistan or Iraq and so its logical to assume rapes are more common in non-muslim countries than in muslim countries

dumbledoresarmy stated :
one estimate recently made was that 70 % of women prisoners in Pakistan, are...*rape victims* who had been 'convicted' of 'immorality'. Of course, in some parts of the Islamic world, a girl who gets raped, and reports it, if she can't produce the obligatory four male muslim witnesses of good character, will be publicly stoned to death by an ecstatically howling male mob. *puke*

Comment :

Prison rapes are common in all societies around the world and as for stoning, thats a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped and the best way to stop it is through diplomacy and financial incentives to change .

Today, most muslim countries do not "stone" and even those who do practice stoning, its a very rare occurence.

Here are examples of stoning by non-muslims :

James the Just, in AD 62 stoned by non-muslims, after being condemned by the Sanhedrin.
Saint Timothy stoned by non-muslims after AD 67
Saint Eskil, Anglo-Saxon monk stoned to death by non-muslim Swedish Vikings
Moctezuma II, last Aztec Emperor (although the Aztecs claim he was executed by the Spanish.) stoned by non-muslims
Du’a Khalil Aswad, stoned to death by non-muslims in Iraqi Yazidi Kurdistan (2007)

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Given the honor-shame 'cover up' mindset that is all-pervasive in the Islamosphere (see Nonie Darwish for more on this - she *lived* in it for more than twenty years, as an Egyptian Muslim) who here believes that governments or individual researchers within dar al Islam are even going to want to find out, much less own up to, exactly how many murders, rapes, drug addicts, prostitutes, and HIV infections they have?

Comment :

It is logical assume that muslim women who are largely sheltered in muslim societies will be subject to much less rape, prostitution, drug addiction, murders and HIV infections compared to women in non-muslim societies who have much more freedom of movement.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that there weren't any homosexuals in Iran? Gee. And the man comes from the very same society that produced 'The Perfumed Garden'. ROFLMAO.

Comment :

President Ahmadinejad stated his opinion and did not say that it was a fact. In my visits to muslim countries I have seen anecdotal evidence of homosexuals not being harmed in anyway ( as long as they do not flaunt their homosexuality in public )

dumbledoresarmy stated :

In the early 1990s the police in the UK did a study. They discovered that a woman married to a Muslim man was EIGHT TIMES MORE LIKELY to be murdered by her spouse, than a woman married to a man of any other religious affiliation.

Comment :

That study is not logical because why would a muslim man be more likely to kill a submissive, sheltered wife compared to a non-muslim man's wife whose wife goes out to party or has an affair at the office with another man ?

dumbledoresarmy stated :

And girls and women from the 'Asian' community in the UK - which is mostly Muslim - were found to commit suicide at a rate TEN TIMES that of girls in UK populations of other backgrounds.

And see this article:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html

which tries to tot up how many Arabs and Muslims are and have been killed, in recent decades, *by their fellow Arabs and by fellow Muslims*.

Comment :

Suicide is mostly due to psychological problems and its logical to assume that a sheltered, submissive girl in a muslim household has less psychological problems than a girl who is subject to ridicule in society, who has boyfriend problems and other problems arising from the freedom of movement experienced by non-muslim girls

dumbledoresarmy stated :

"The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews.
"A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims".

Comment :

More genocides have happened in non-muslim countries by the hundreds of millions compared to muslim countries ( example : the Jewish holocausts in Europe, Cambodian, Rwanda, Russian/communist, Chinese genocides etc )

dumbledoresarmy stated :

And so we return to Iraq, where if the USA leaves, and all western nations leave, the Sunnis and Shiites will (once they have exterminated the remaining Christians, Mandaeans and Yazidis) get down to tearing each other's throats out, just like they did in the Iran-Iraq war. If no modern non-Muslim country sells them weapons, they will do it with bricks, rocks, knives and their bare hands; until some murderous strongman claws his way to the top of the heap, and imposes some sort of order (mostly by killing people) for a few decades...until he gets assassinated.

Comment :

Yes, "christians" have been killing "christians" ( example ; the American civil war where over 600 000 "christian's died ) and yes, muslims have been killing muslims too.

And yet, you can visit most muslim countries and see christians and jews and muslims living in peace.

The radicalism in muslim countries is mostly due to the presence of western troops and once those western troops leave and once the west helps muslim countries develop and solve the israeli-palestinian conflict, you will find that muslims will further marginalize the radicals within their society and thus make those radicals irrelevant

Another article that may be of use to the clear-headed and genuinely curious, re. the actual motivations of Al Qaeda and all the other jihad gangs.

It is a review of Aaron Klein's book 'Schmoozing With Terrorists".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546417168&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Here is an excerpt which reveals how specious are loveverybody's protestations that the likes of al qaeda are merely righteously reacting to American injustice.

QUOTE "'Once Islam dominates America, anyone living inside must abide by our rules. There is no choice. You don't like it? Too bad. Go somewhere else and go to hell."

'Gems such as this abound in American journalist Aaron Klein's book, which details his many one-on-one interviews with wanted terrorists {sic: Muslim jihadists - dda}. They brag. They threaten.

'They explain that their goal isn't so much to kill Jews (though they aren't shy about declaring that "the Jews are corrupting humanity on earth... they should be removed") *as it is to please Allah by sacrificing their lives to further the spread of Islam* {my emphasis added - dda}.

'And they do go on about what a world under Islam will be like. Britney Spears and Madonna? Beheaded. Music? Forbidden. Islamic dress? Mandatory for everyone." END QUOTE.

In other words - it's all about the grand 1400-years-and-counting Muslim project to force-feed sharia to the entire planet, whether non-Muslims want it or not. It's about trying to impose a global theocratic despotism that will maintain itself by the sorts of 'rules' we see in hideous play in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia...

And just to cap off my series of postings above, as to where the jihad drive of the sharia-pushers comes from, something I copied and kept, in January this year, from the comments section of an Australian newspaper. It is one person's account of their conversation with some Muslim Jew-haters, at the time of the Battle of Gaza.

AMONG THE COMMENTS MADE TO AN AUSTRALIAN BLOG:

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_jews_are_to_blame/P75/

Jonathan Whybird
Mon 19 Jan 09 (05:24pm)

'Excellent article Carolyn. I note the earlier poster who said that he/she has sent the article in question to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I think The Australian should do this itself and report on the outcome - it would be very very interesting.

'Marcus [another poster] (the expert on everything) I cannot agree with your view that most of the Palestinians are peaceful people.

'On Saturday [17th Jan 2009] in Brisbane there was another demonstration in favour of Palestine at which anybody who bothered to go (I live in the city and they marched in my street so I had a front row ground level seat as my fiance and I had come back from a run)

' would have heard Muslim Australians chanting “kill the jews”.

'I even spoke to one protestor [sic: protester]

'who confirmed he was Muslim and from Iran

'who said there would only be peace when Israel *and the rest of the west* {my emphasis added - dda} was destroyed.

'*Now this man was supported by many of his fellow protestors who screamed with him* {my emphasis added - dda}, but for three men in the crowd who shook their heads and at that point left the protest (and apologised to us for the comments of the others). {Nota bene: who were the 'tiny minority' in this case, and who were the shamelessly aggressive majority? - dda}.

'When I asked the man why he hated the west he said “because you reject the prophet”.

'Please explain to me how this sort of behaviour should be tolerated? Also why is it that two weekends in a row have seen protests in their thousands against Israel - but the muslim community was silent over september 11, bali and London?'
END OF EXCERPT.

Let's run that past everyone, shall we? Mr Anonymous Muslim, on a street in sunny Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, is asked by an infidel Aussie 'why he hated the west?'.

His reply? - "because you reject the prophet".

That's all. *That* is the casus belli, *the* 'reason' for Jihad, sufficient in and of itself; that I, that we, that five billion non-Muslims refuse to bow down to 'mohammed' and submit ourselves to the Arab Imperial Religion. That's ALL it takes.

There are radicals in every religion and most radicals take the violent parts or explain texts suiting their violent nature in order to justify their violence.

All muslims except for maybe about 75 muslims take the Koran and Hadith as historical texts in which the teachings about non-muslims pertain to those non-muslims during the time of Muhammad and not pertaining to non-muslims during the 21st century.

So when Muhammad talks about the treachery of Jews, he is not talking about jews of the 21st century or even all jews during his time but about the few treacherous jews who plotted against him in Medina.

Muhammad did make peace with almost all tribes of jews and christians during his time, showing that he was not talking about persecuting all jews in the hadith or the Koran

Dumbledoresarmy stated :

loveverybody's protestations that the likes of al qaeda are merely righteously reacting to American injustice.

Comment :

I never said that Al-Qaeda was being righteous.

All I was stating was the motivations behind the attacks on 9/11.

About 75 muslims in the muslim world do want to kill Americans on American soil but the vast majority of muslims do not want to follow Al-Qaeda, just as the vast majority of Jews do not want to conquer lands up to Iraq and commit genocide on all people living within the conquered lands as commanded in Deuteronomy 20:16

Memo to anyone new to this site.

'loveverybody' is a perfect example of a Mohammedtroll attempting to confuse and distract and to deflect our attention from the awful truth that there are a very great many Mohammedans in the world - certainly far more than its ridiculous 'seventy five'! (for where, pray, did those thousands of allahu-akbaring Muslims come from, who mobbed and pillaged and burnt a defenceless village full of Christians, in Pakistan, all on the wholly-trumped-up charge that said Christians *might* have 'desecrated' a Quran? or the huge Muslim mobs that are roused, at the drop of a hat, to attack the Coptic Christians in Egypt? - looks like a hell of a lot more than '75' to me) -- who take the jihad imperative completely seriously.

Observe that 'loveverybody' carefully ignores and denies the example that I gave - actual factual run-of-the-mill Muslims, on a street in Queensland, Australia, howling 'Death to the Jews!' (not, nota bene, 'death to the Israelis', but 'death to the Jews!!'), and then explaining quite openly that their reason for hating non-Muslims (not just Jews) - and for wanting to make war on, and destroy, non-Muslims - was because said non-Muslims rejected Mohammed. 'loveverybody' wants us not to believe our lying eyes and ears. There were many, many other Muslims saying similar things; and they were saying things like that, looong before Gaza; and there are records of Muslims ferociously attacking Jews, all through the centuries preceding the restoration of the Jewish state of Israel.

Every move this Mohammedtroll makes, as it twists and turns and lies and denies (and accuses, resorting continually to tu quoque, as Muslims habitually do) is dismally predictable to those of us who, over the past three or four or five years, have frequented this comments floor and watched Mohammedan apologists twisting and turning and doing everything imaginable to try to prevent us from observing the massive and indeed striking continuity between what is prescribed in the core texts of Islam, and what it is that a great many Mohammedans are doing now and have indeed always and everywhere done, ever since Islam got going in the 7th/ 8th century AD.

For the instruction of new readers, here is a classic posting by Hugh Fitzgerald, a member of the jihadwatch board, on what it is like to try to argue with Muslims. I am afraid that - unusually - I do not have an exact time-stamp for this, but it should be possible to find it with a little judicious searching.

"Infuriating, is it not? to attempt to have a rational debate

and to find yourself instead with an opponent who slithers about like an eel,
and with whom you can never quite engage,
because you can never quite grasp and hold him long enough,
because he is forever slipping and sliding
and meanwhile keeping up a non-stop patter of distraction and attack and omission and exaggeration.

"The very idea of a debate is or should be related to the idea that each party attempts, in good faith, to examine a topic together, and to ask, or answer, questions of or from the other.

"Muslims don’t do that.

"They don’t ‘play nice’- because they are religiously obliged to defend the indefensible,

"and you will be frustrated out of your wits about the detractions, the lies and prevarications that will be thrown your way.

"Unless the moderator-hosts for such things
set up strict rules,
and demand that questions be answered
and not remain un-answered
or answered with irrelevancies,
the farce will continue.

"And all that will have been learned is something about the eerily eel-like quality of the other side,

"with all that slipping and slithering –perhaps not quite as effectively as Tariq Ramadan — as far away from the real and serious matter at hand, as is possible."

Q. E. D.

To : dumbledoresarmy

Everytime a Nazi group in the US says "death to the Jews", does not mean all Americans hate Jews.

Likewise, just because a small group of radical muslims say "death to Jews" does not mean all muslims hate Jews

Observe, ladies and gentlemen - our Mohammedtroll is repeating the threadbare 'tiny minority of extremists' cliche, claiming that only 'a small group of radical Muslims' hate Jews.

Memo to any non-Muslim reading this: you *must* read "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism" in order to grasp that orthodox mainline Quran-Sira-Hadith Islam is *saturated*, absolutely *saturated* with hatred of Jews qua Jews. Both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish remark upon the fact that the Muslim milieu in which they grew up, was full of Jew-hatred. Nonie records that in Egyptian mosques prayers were regularly recited, *cursing* both Jews and Christians.

Christians can be Christians without being antisemitic, since Jesus - whom Christians are required to love and imitate - was and is a Jewish rabbi. Christian persecution of Jews, historically, took place in blatant disobedience to the command to 1. love your neighbour as yourself and 2. love your (actual or perceived) enemy. None of the things (however terrible - for which, see James Parkes or Malcolm Hay) that were done to Jews, in Christendom, were done in obedience to any explicit command or teaching in the canonical Christian scriptures.

Islam teaches Jew-hatred because Mohammed hated and attacked Jews. Mohammed , whom pious Muslims have to imitate as closely as they can, was a mad Arab warlord who *hated* Jews [except for the two Jewish women that he raped and imprisoned in his harem after he'd destroyed their communities], and attacked, robbed and killed them. So the Muslims, imitating Mohammed, have hated, attacked, robbed, raped and lied to Jews, ever since.

The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides, around 1200, wrote that *no-one* had ever treated the Jews as badly as did the Arab Muslims, the followers of Mohammed, whom he (Maimonides) called 'ha-Meshugga', 'the Mad One'.

Indeed, it is recorded that a prominent Mohammedan theologian from 15th century Morocco, Al-Maghili, taught his co-religionists, "Love of the Prophet requires hatred of Jews".

I wonder whether the 'Islamic Society of Mobile' has been covered by the 'Mapping Sharia' project yet?

And is the 'Muslim Students' Association' at the University of South Alabama, still going strong?

Just in case anyone who is reading this, happens to be from Daphne, or from Mobile, Alabama, or a student or faculty member of the U of S Alabama...keep your eyes and ears open.

Final thought - from the article - 'one of the most popular mosques in the Mobile area'.

How many mosques *are* there in Mobile, Alabama?

And when, oh, when are the Authorities in free non-Muslim countries going to start SHUTTING DOWN, at the very least, any mosque that has demonstrably harboured and nurtured at least one active jihadist?

Because a mosque is not like a church or a synagogue.

If a Jew or a Christian who has been regularly trotting along to synagogue, or to church, is discovered to have engaged in fraud, or committed murder, or rape, or bigamy, or bashed his wife, or committed treason, the people of the place of worship that he was wont to attend will be truly horrified...for such behaviour is explicitly condemned and forbidden by the texts and teachings that are propounded day to day, week to week, within their walls. One would not shut down a church because a member of the congregation flagrantly ignored the example of Christ, despite having been urged to *follow* that example.

Whereas when a Muslim who regularly attends a mosque, is caught plotting to attack and kill non-Muslims (sometimes planning to get himself killed in the process), the awful truth is that his behaviour is exactly what the 'sacred' texts of Islam, recited over and over in the mosque, and given their traditional interpretations, both prescribe and approve. If a Muslim is caught, in a non-Muslim society, actively and zealously *following* the example and teaching of Mohammed, by engaging in jihad against the surrounding non-Muslims, then I think the non-Muslim society is fully within its rights to shut down the mosque that such a one has been attending.

To: dumbledoresarmy

The chances of you dying from a terrorist is even less than the chances of you dying in a plane crash.

You should be more fearful of the foods you eat and fellow citizens who might want to harm you.

Do you know that indoor house pollution can cause cancer ?

The US govt inspects about 2% of imported foods and people in the US have died from food poisoning

You can visit most muslim countries including Iran and find Jews and Muslims and Christians living in peace.

You can also visit the US and find some Nazi and white supremacists groups preaching hate towards the Jews but that is not common.

Your fear is being propagated by the propaganda from western governments who want to keep their wasteful spending on the military as high as possible and thus depriving you of a better and healthier standard of living because as long as you fear the terrorists, the US government can keep their supporters in the military/industrial complex "laughing all the way to the bank " and so the US govt does not have to spend adequate money on safer food, safer air, safer water and a safer environment from pollutants and poisons in everyday items you use.

Hateverykuffar

I am not an American, I am an Australian. I come from the land of the Southern Cross; from the Terra Incognita del Espiritu Santo.

I am a lover of Zion, a friend of Israel. Just so's you know.

I am also very happy that my country has been, historically, for the past fifty years, a friend and ally of the USA. And I much prefer the USA, despite its follies (most notably its folly in swallowing the lies of the Pakistanis and Saudis and 'Palestinian' Arab Muslims), to the abominable head-chopping slave-masters of the obscene House of Saud, or to the mass-murdering woman-hating woman-stoning mad mullahs of Iran, or the persecuting Jew-hating society of Islamic Egypt, or to the lawless chaos that is the sharia-addled jihad-wracked societies of Somalia and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Speaking as a woman and a Christian, I am glad I live in a western land, and NOT anywhere in dar al Islam.

And I pray with great fervour that the USA will wake up and realize that, like Byzantium of old, and like ancient India, it is targeted by the sharia-pushers of the Ummah, or Muslim Mob, because it is *not Muslim* in its laws and in its customs; and because it is big and rich, a pirate's dream of plunder.

And also because the insane sharia-pusher control freaks cannot *endure* that anywhere on the face of the planet there should be women with uncovered hair who walk free in the sunlight, and men who refuse to fall on their faces and stick their bottoms in the air and worship allah the war-demon of the Arabs; or that anywhere in the world there should be church bells ringing and choirs singing in the street and wine and beer brewing and painters painting portraits and sculptors shaping human and animal forms, and BEAUTY being created, and orchestras tuning up, and men and women walking together in public hand in hand or even - shock, horrors! kissing each other under the apple-blossom.

If you want sharia, which seems to me to be what the kingdom of demons would be if it were manifest on earth, go where sharia is already, and *stay there*; but if you want to push sharia on the rest of us, we're not interested, we're not buying, for its fruit is apples of sodom.

We kaffir lands have (and have had) our sins, follies and failures; but we are much, much better places for human beings to live in, than any of the lands poisoned by sharia.

TO: dumbledoresarmy

How do you explain a non-muslim girl allowed to wear skimpy shorts in all of the Sharia ruled Malaysian states ?

I would think wearing skimpy shorts is more of a poison than a girl covered in traditional muslim clothing.

Its more of a poison to live in a land where pornography, skimpy clothing, nude beaches and abortion is legal.

Yes, Sharia is very strict, but if you learn the rules, your children would grow up more innocent than in a land where everything goes

loveverybody

re tourists wearing shorts on the beach in Malaysia: one simple answer: not Muslims being tolerant, but Muslims bending rules temporarily to get tourist $$

If you think the sight of a girl in shorts is 'poison' then you are batsh*t crazy. I know about 'eve-teasing' - what Muslim men do to Muslim women (even in full islamic dress) who dare to walk alone in public, in Egypt, or in Pakistan, in daytime, in the street. And so I call BS on you.

You are stark raving *mad* to even try to make me believe that as a Christian woman I and my daughters would be better off in some sharia-addled Muslim region, than in a secular western country. Live in Egypt or Pakistan and run the risk that my beautiful young daughters might be snatched off the streets by Muslim male thugs, and raped and drugged and brainwashed and 'converted' to Islam, and I'd never see them again, and the police and the courts would protect the kidnappers and laugh in my face? Again I ask, are you *mad*??

I know what happened to Lina Joy in Malaysia. I know what has happened to Hindus, and Christians, and Buddhists, in Muslim Malaysia. I know about the 'virtue police' pouncing on a tourist couple - husband and wife - *in Malaysia* and accusing them of 'immorality'. I know about the relentless drive toward sharia; the public caning of a woman who merely drank *one* glass of beer! I know about the attempt to segregate cinemas, so even a husband and wife cannot see a movie in the cinema together.

Oh, and I know about Mohammed Hegazy in Egypt, and his wife and daughter, living in hiding, disowned by his family, deluged with death threats, all because he converted from Islam to Christianity (his wife also) and wants to have his ID card changed to say 'Christian' rather than 'Muslim'. I know about three Christians who were grotesquely tortured to death in Turkey, for the 'sin' of working in a Bible publishing house...and because two of them were apostates from Islam.

I know about the 13 year old daughter of a Christian pastor in Bangladesh, who was gang-raped by a gang of local Muslim men, in order to punish her pastor for being a witness to Christianity in a Muslim district.

I know aall about how Muslims treat non-Muslims, all over the Muslim lands. Like sh!t under their feet. And I know that your holy, holy books call us najas, 'filth'. I know about the howling Muslim mob attacking Coptic Christians in Egypt and calling them 'followers of the dog's religion'.

Sharia is not 'strict' - it is downright evil: unjust and cruel to the nth degree. It is a system that seems to be designed to satisfy the desires of psychopaths. Nonie Darwish's 'Cruel and Usual Punishment' was quite enough to tell me what sharia is, and why I would never want to live in any land heavily influenced by sharia.