In FrontPage yesterday Jamie Glazov interviewed me about my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran. Here is an excerpt:
FP: Tell us how and why political correctness has made it almost impossible to discuss what is really in the Koran and in other Islamic texts.
Spencer: Political correctness would have us believe that the Koran is a book of peace, and that anyone who says otherwise is "bigoted," "hateful," and "Islamophobic." But is it, really? What the Koran really says can easily be verified. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not "Islamophobic" to forewarn Infidels by pointing this out. It is simply a fact. And it should go without saying that it is not a fact that should move any reader of my book to hate anyone. The fact that the Koran counsels warfare against unbelievers should move readers to act in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people, before it is too late.
FP: How does the misinterpretation of what the Koran and other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?
Spencer: Most Western analysts dogmatically deny that the Koran teaches violence and supremacism. Yet Muslims who believe this comprise a global movement, active from Indonesia to Nigeria and extending into Europe and North America, that is dedicated to waging war against "unbelievers" - that is, non-Muslims - and subjugating them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law. This movement sees in the Koran its divine mandate to wage that war.
In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an "Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations." In it they quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. "In God's book," asserts the letter, "he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran's 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."
Osama bin Laden's communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious "Verse of the Sword," 9:5.[i] Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" (22:39) and "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan" (4:76)."
In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Koranic exhortation to violence as being a means to establish the truth: "Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood." The "Verse of the Sword" is Koran 9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement - Osama bin Laden - down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare - if not impossible - to find a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. Britain-based jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, "It says in the Koran that we must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy." And Pakistani jihad leader Beitullah Mehsud claims that "Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world." He specified that his jihad - struggle in Arabic - was an offensive military operation: "We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia." The "jazia," or jizya, is a tax that the Koran (9:29) specifies must be levied on Jews, Christians, and some other non-Muslim faiths as a sign of their subjugation under the Islamic social order.
One pro-Osama website put it this way: "The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad."
Yet a huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the Koran teaches peace, and that those who brandish Korans and commit violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings of their own holy book. These include U.S. government postures toward Pakistan and Egypt; immigration matters; airport security procedures; military strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan; domestic anti-terror policies; and our acquiescence to Saudi Arabia's Islamic proselytizing campaign in America and many other countries.
But most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption that the Koran is peaceful, for they believe that any insinuation to the contrary is racist, bigoted, and effectively brands all Muslims as terrorists. In other words, they think the implications of the possibility that the Koran teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus, many policymakers simply assume the Koran teaches peace without bothering to study the text. They do this to their own peril - and ours.
FP: What, in your view, is the Koran?
Spencer: It is the primary religious text of one of the world's most prominent and influential religions. For more than a billion Muslims, the Koran is the unadulterated, pure word of Allah, eternal and perfect, delivered though the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. For Infidels, it is a threat, a call for their destruction or subjugation. Consequently, every Infidel needs to know what is in it, and plan accordingly to defend himself.
There is much more. Read it all.
Politician think: "Better to stick ones head in the sand than actually make a value based judgment. Especially against a group willing to kill for even the smallest of slight."
Ignoring the violent history of Islam is a bit like reading Mein Kampf and claiming that Hitler didn't really mean all that stuff about killing the Jews.
Just thought I'd come by the zoo and look in on the animals...
Nothing new here today...
move along folks...
remember, don't feed the authors...
woops, too late looks like the strays are going to hang around...
long live yellow journalism...
Peace
Abdullah
It looks like frontpage editor Jamie Glazov who interviewed Spencer needs to be schooled by Spencer (though whether Spencer's answers will change his low-end asymptotic approach is another matter):
FP [i.e., interviewer Jamie Glazov]: How does the misinterpretation of what the Koran and other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?
Emphasis added. "Misinterpretation"!!!??? After all this time at frontpage and being a part of the anti-Islam movement (albeit many of whose members continue to refuse to be, in fact, anti-Islam), Glazov is still under the delusion that the Koran is okay, and that only a "misinterpretation" makes it an evil and dangerous document!!!???
Though Spencer didn't take Glazov to task for that asinine phrasing of his question, Spencer's response was tantamount to a copious refutation of it, and near the end of his answer he noted:
"In other words, they [i.e., "most government and media analysts"] think the implications of the possibility that the Koran teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate."
I dare say that Jamie Glazov is one of those media analysts who continues to recoil from the implications his PC MC heart knows logically flow from realizing that it is the Koran itself, and Islam itself, which declare never-ending war against us on all fronts.
Elsewhere, Glazov has written:
"...when facing our enemy, surely it is crucial to use terms such as "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam" to understand and confront the enemy because what we are facing is also a political movement and definitely not an entire religion or every Muslim."
Here, Glazov demonstrates an ignorance of the unique fusion of politics and religion in Islam, making his distinction worthless. He is superimposing a Western model upon the Muslim world, and categorizing the Muslims who are doing mischief as "political" Muslims, and the Muslims who are apparently doing no mischief as "religious" and therefore as probably harmless (if not, indeed, our viable allies against the "political" Muslims).
"Let us remember that millions of Muslims were and are victims, just like we are, of the radicals and fanatics in their midst. Many of them want to defeat the Islamo-fascists just as much as we do and it would be crazy and self-destructive for us not to ally ourselves with them."
This in my view crosses the line, or descends too far, from asymptotic to PC MC. Glazov has moved from merely categorizing the apparently harmless multitudes of Muslims with a superimposition of the Western model, to endowing these multitudes with a status of victimhood (which they would share with us Infidels, the main targets of jihad), and beyond that further, to conferring upon these "millions" the function and honor of being our allies in solving the horrendous problem of Islam.
"Let’s also keep in mind that the term “Islamo-fascism” was created by moderate Algerian Muslims who were being terrorized by Islamic fanatics who sought to impose Sharia law in Algeria."
Here, as elsewhere, Glazov commits the elementary and simplistic error of assuming that if a sociopolitically diseased population has internal victims, those internal victims must not be part of the dysfunctional nourishment of the disease.
"And the term [Islamofascism] is historically based – since radical Islam is linked to fascism. After all, Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which today’s radical Muslim groups descend) was an open admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler -- as was the principal theorist of the modern jihad, Sayyid Qutb."
Glazov here is implying that our problem with Islam is modern because infused with inspiration from Western fascism and Nazism, and thus is not essential to Islam itself, but somehow a historical accident. This too would make easier our project of finding "millions" of allies from the ocean of Islam -- allies who are true "religious" Muslims as opposed to those in the minority who are twisting Islam to suit their "political" goals.
For much more evidence and analysis, see:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/12/frontpage-dragged-down-by-pc-mc.html
Michael,that only demeans you as it does your cause.Remember what your Mother taught you- "Civility costs nothing."
Your personal Jinn,
Reacher.
How much do they pay you abdullah for the worthless drek you post here.
By they, I mean your Arab paymasters at CAIR Dallas.
Not for nothing but why is AM allowed to post his crap and insults (inferring we are apes and pigs with the zoo analogy) while anytime I make a disparaging comment about islam or muslims it is routinely deleted (and I've even been banned under another name). I realize we would like to own the moral high-ground (and not provide cair ammo)but I take offense to the one-sided censorship. Indirectly, JW is not practicing what it preaches and has succumb to islamic intimidation. If the post has no value and is only intended to insult then delete it (or not) but do it in each and every case.
Comic Relief,
I made no such derrogitory comment about you...merely about the "wild things" at the zoo.
Apes and pigs? What a lame stereotype that is. There is no place in the religion that says human beings are descended from other than human beings.
Honestly, it is isance the crazy ideas you ascribe to "Islam" here on these pages...
Peace
Abdullah
Reacher,
You claim to be a Christian?
Peace
Abdullah
Abduallah: Care to actually refute this "yellow journalism", rather than being insulting. Yes, saying this is a zoo implies those here are animals.
AM said (in other thread): "They are not recognize as a "Jewish" state."
Actually "Jewish state" is exactly the words used by the UN, along with "the Arab state" (as a separate state)
The UN Resolution: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Or, do you mean not reconized by Islam and the Muslims states that that's what matters to you? If so, does that mean you ignore the former's deceleration and rather listen to the later instead?
Are you against Israel establishing their own country? if so, why?
Also, some other things you didn't get around to replying to:
AM: "Yes, the comment itself and the meaning itself from that poster was racist. "
What? How was the poster racist? I would beleeive maybe incorrect in whether you were using a fallacy, but how was pointing out a racist fallacy racist?
You claim I used a fallacy. Which one and where? Misunderstanding isn't a logical fallacy.
Also, forgive me, I meant say say "You claim that THE PERCIEVED problems with Islam is only because the media is focusing on Muslims who do evil,“, thus you claim the problem is only perceived.
AM said: "What antisemetism? I have only seen the majority of them oppose the occupation of Palestine by Zionists…there is no antisemetism there. Yes, I am sure there are some antisemetic opinions expressed by some people that you could refer to…it by no means represents the majority views."
That's the problem, you see it as occupation. Gaza should belong to Isreal, they won it in a defensive war, it was stupid for Isreal to give it up. Gaza started shelling them (from civilian areas!) and sending suicide bombers so they built a perfectly legal wall to protect themselves and started fighting back. As for the MSA, Take a look at who these Student Muslim groups are inviting to speak, and how they protest. it's not just anti-Zionist, and I don't see any loud protests from inside these groups. That might say something.
Like this guy: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/03/msa-to-promote-religious-tolerance-by-featuring-neo-nazi.html
Or how do people like this become LEADERS of a MSA chapter if their opinion is "minority"? http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12798
Nevermind also the crowds of hundreds of people who praise Hitler, say Jews should go to the gas chamber.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/los-angeles-pro-jihad-rally-long-live-hitler-put-jews-in-ovens.html
We see a lot of reports, and even if these are being "spun" as you claim, they really are happening, and in enough quantities to be troubling. Yet, you never see protests with Christians shouting for the death of Muslims or Jews.
AM said: "There are many of them that do not label their action directly, but the vast majority of the Chrisitan soldiers I have communicated with see current world conflicts as “our religion versus theirs” It permeates all levels of government, albeit not universally."
Citations? You say their done not labeling (as opposed to the Muslims who scream "Allah akbar") so you don't have to actually back up this claim with facts, because it's all sooper secret.
AM said: "Even from the time G.W. stated that lie about the cell phone call from the jet that went down in the field during the 9-11 crisis. There is no way in hell a cell phone can get a signal from that height on board a jet, this has been proven. Yet G.W. claimed the person making the call was rallying passengers to attack the hijackers and closed with the Lord’s Prayer. You didn’t notice this propaganda, did you?"
Which part do you mean is propaganda? The call or the Lord's prayer? I've heard this story before. The Lord's prayer is asking for protection in times of danger (I.E. the HIJACKERS attacked them and they were ready to DEFEND THEMSELVES and the INTENDED TARGET saving possibly thousands.) The "no way could have called" is a common proof of those who claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the plane that crashed in the field was hijacked by the US government. Do you beleive that? (I don't think you do, from other things you've said, but I'm wondering since you bring up a line of argument used by the conspiracy theorists).
AM said: "Yes, you seem to have more of a desire to actually see proofs rather than just intend an insult, but it is still true. You imply dire insult to noble people by the very nature of your questions…the whole marriage to Aisha line of questions is an insult. We Muslims understand the issue and it is not even a concern to us, it was a noble union that brought much good to humanity. Period."
AGAIN, AM STANDS FIRMLY AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I don't care what you say about my faith, I'm ready to answer questions and not treat you the way you do when I honestly ask questions about Islam that genuinely troubles me. I could understand if I were making things up completely, you'd have a point but IT SAYS IN THE HADITHS SHE WAS 9. You're trying to use emotional/PC bullying to silence critics. Again, noted.
AM said: "This was an erroneous argument from me based upon age of a person at a time early in the revelation…I mistook the person in the hadith, it has no basis in my arguments once I realized the reference I made was an error and I notd this and dropped that point in my arguement as it had no basis. It was meaningless in the context of my argument and I noted this and moved on…it was an immediate admission that I was wrong. Why do you have a problem noting this and moving on as well?"
Because you admitted to one error, but ignored the other. AS I SAID BEFORE you admitted you mistook the person of the story BUT YOU STILL WILL NOT ADMIT that someone being mature enough to know dumping icky stuff like offal on someone's back is wrong means they are mature enough for sex. This troubles me because any six year old should know this is bad, and thus by your logic a six year old can be mature enough for sex.
Author Profile Page Foolster41 | October 5, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply
Abduallah:
AM: "Yes, the comment itself and the meaning itself from that poster was racist. "
What? How was the poster racist? I would beleeive maybe incorrect in whether you were using a fallacy, but how was pointing out a racist fallacy racist?
You claim I used a fallacy. Which one and where? Misunderstanding isn't a logical fallacy.
Also, forgive me, I meant say say "You claim that THE PERCIEVED problems with Islam is only because the media is focusing on Muslims who do evil,“, thus you claim the problem is only perceived.
AM said: "What antisemetism? I have only seen the majority of them oppose the occupation of Palestine by Zionists…there is no antisemetism there. Yes, I am sure there are some antisemetic opinions expressed by some people that you could refer to…it by no means represents the majority views."
That's the problem, you see it as occupation. Gaza should belong to Isreal, they won it in a defensive war, it was stupid for Isreal to give it up. Gaza started shelling them (from civilian areas!) and sending suicide bombers so they built a perfectly legal wall to protect themselves and started fighting back. As for the MSA, Take a look at who these Student Muslim groups are inviting to speak, and how they protest. it's not just anti-Zionist, and I don't see any loud protests from inside these groups. That might say something.
Like this guy: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/03/msa-to-promote-religious-tolerance-by-featuring-neo-nazi.html
Or how do people like this become LEADERS of a MSA chapter if their opinion is "minority"? http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12798
Never mind also on a broader scale the crowds of hundreds of Muslims who praise Hitler, say Jews should go to the gas chamber.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/los-angeles-pro-jihad-rally-long-live-hitler-put-jews-in-ovens.html
We see a lot of reports, and even if these are being "spun" as you claim, they really are happening, and in enough quantities to be troubling. Yet, you never see protests with Christians shouting for the death of Muslims or Jews.
AM said: "There are many of them that do not label their action directly, but the vast majority of the Christian soldiers I have communicated with see current world conflicts as “our religion versus theirs” It permeates all levels of government, albeit not universally."
Citations? You say their done not labeling (as opposed to the Muslims who scream "Allah akbar") so you don't have to actually back up this claim with facts, because it's all sooper secret.
AM said: "Even from the time G.W. stated that lie about the cell phone call from the jet that went down in the field during the 9-11 crisis. There is no way in hell a cell phone can get a signal from that height on board a jet, this has been proven. Yet G.W. claimed the person making the call was rallying passengers to attack the hijackers and closed with the Lord’s Prayer. You didn’t notice this propaganda, did you?"
Which part do you mean is propaganda? The call or the Lord's prayer? I've heard this story before. The Lord's prayer is asking for protection in times of danger (I.E. the HIJACKERS attacked them and they were ready to DEFEND THEMSELVES and the INTENDED TARGET saving possibly thousands.) The "no way could have called" is a common proof of those who claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the plane that crashed in the field was hijacked by the US government. Do you beleive that? (I don't think you do, from other things you've said, but I'm wondering since you bring up a line of argument used by the conspiracy theorists).
AM said: "Yes, you seem to have more of a desire to actually see proofs rather than just intend an insult, but it is still true. You imply dire insult to noble people by the very nature of your questions…the whole marriage to Aisha line of questions is an insult. We Muslims understand the issue and it is not even a concern to us, it was a noble union that brought much good to humanity. Period."
AGAIN, AM STANDS FIRMLY AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I don't care what you say about my faith, I'm ready to answer questions and not treat you the way you do when I honestly ask questions about Islam that genuinely troubles me. I could understand if I were making things up completely, you'd have a point but IT SAYS IN THE HADITHS SHE WAS 9. You're trying to use emotional/PC bullying to silence critics. Again, noted.
AM said: "This was an erroneous argument from me based upon age of a person at a time early in the revelation…I mistook the person in the hadith, it has no basis in my arguments once I realized the reference I made was an error and I notd this and dropped that point in my arguement as it had no basis. It was meaningless in the context of my argument and I noted this and moved on…it was an immediate admission that I was wrong. Why do you have a problem noting this and moving on as well?"
Because you admitted to one error, but ignored the other. AS I SAID BEFORE you admitted you mistook the person of the story BUT YOU STILL WILL NOT ADMIT that someone being mature enough to know dumping icky stuff like offal on someone's back is wrong means they are mature enough for sex. This troubles me because any six year old should know this is bad, and thus by your logic a six year old can be mature enough for sex.
Dah. sorry. I somehow managed to paste the message twice in the same message. You don't have to answer questions twice. :P
Yes, a juvenile taunt is as good as a genuine response. Also,speaking of animals, if this is such a horrible site, why do you return to it again and again like a pig to a trough?
here this is taken from Michelle Malkin webpage about the reality on the ground concerning islam, the mosque and koran
" Stephan Mace of the Army’s 61st Cavalry Regiment knew the Taliban would be waiting for him when he returned to eastern Afghanistan in September.
During a two-week leave in early September, the 21-year-old specialist sat on his father’s couch in Winchester, Virginia, and discussed his concerns over Forward Operating Base Keating in Kamdesh District, a region known as a Taliban stronghold.
“He talked about the village next to the base, that it had 300 Taliban, and they couldn’t do anything about it because they were in mosques hiding or with other civilians,” says his father, Larry Mace.
“They knew they were there and they couldn’t do anything about it and they killed them.”
To fight a war to win, you need to destroy and kill the enemy and when that enemy hide among civilians and use the so called place of whoreship the mosque, then take them down.
Foolster you wrote “Abduallah: Care to actually refute this "yellow journalism",
I do it most of the time…yes, sometimes I only have time for a drive by. : )
Foolster you wrote “rather than being insulting. Yes, saying this is a zoo implies those here are animals.”
True, but not specifically apes and pigs, right?
That little projection comes from that poster’s own bias.
Foolster you wrote “Are you against Israel establishing their own country? if so, why?"
They have as much right as any other country as well as the responsibility, however, it seems they squeal all the time about their “right” yet they have a big problem honoring the “responsibility” of it.
Review the UN declarations about their violations and see how many times Israel proved it deserved the “rights” of being a sovereign nation based upon how they treated the occupied peoples…
Foolster you wrote “That's the problem, you see it as occupation.”
That is the legal definition of it under international law…Occupied Territories, and Occupied People… this legal military reality comes with legal and moral responsibilities that Israel has continuously failed to live up to.
Foolster you wrote “ Yet, you never see protests with Christians shouting for the death of Muslims or Jews.”
It goes on here and many other Islamophobic blogs in volumes genocidal desires, bigoted violent hateful intentions solely targeting Islam and Muslims, not the problem causing criminals reported here, all Muslims get the hatred directed at them by you people.
And the biggest problem with people like you is that the cowardly viral hatred you spread here is done so anonymously and thus you hide behind anonymity… it is here and it isn’t focused on the problem, it is disseminated and spread and smeared on to ALL Muslims…that’s the problem…time is ticking away on social change and one may just be the targeting of hate media like this thing here.
Foolster you wrote “Which part do you mean is propaganda?”
I am saying that in all rationality the call can not ever be said to have taken place because it is impossible to get a cell signal at 35,000 feet going 500+ mph.
The propaganda was inserted in G.W.’s speech when he made it into an "Us versus Them" religious thing by “quoting” the so called cell phone conversation in which the caller rallied the other passengers to attach the high jackers and then closed with the Lord's Prayer. Yes, politico-religious propoganda that was clearly laid out.
Foolster you wrote AM said: "This was an erroneous argument from me based upon age of a person at a time early in”
It had no basis in the argument and thus no meaning. Get over it and move on.
The “no true scottsman” fallacy…yes, it is a fallacy because it is based on a person’s race. Islam. It is not something that one is born with such as a skin color or a nationality, such as “Scottish.”
When acting on motivations other than Islam a person can in fact remove themselves from Islam…that is a fact.
So the “no true scottsman” BS is just that…a logical fallacy… that position can in no way be compared to being a Muslim… because no matter how many times I say “I am Scottish” I can not be Scottish unless I was born Scottish…yet a person who is not a Muslim may learn the truth and the rules and thus say “I am a Muslim” yet they may only be as such with faith and action that is guided by Islam.
One can not be an idol worshipping “Muslim”…you are either a Muslim or you are an Idol Worshipper you can not be both…understand yet?
Islam is a state of being based upon actions guided by the rules that qualify one as being in that state of being. You can remove yourself from that state of being by making a choice and acting on that choice outside of the guidance of Islamic Jursiprudence…if it is not an act guided by Islam it cannot be said to be “Islam.” (i.e. the person blowing up innocent people? Wrong, not Islam…that is terrorism. Got it yet?)
Let’s move to something fresh…it sounds as though you are developing an complex here... and "obsession" no pun intended.
(Okay, I confess... it was a pun...)
: )
Peace
Abdullah
Good analogy.
Here is a little snippet from Australian history, that strikingly illustrates the benefits of Reading the Enemy's Book and Taking It Seriously.
Sir Thomas Blamey [1994-1951], ‘The Sentinel’, broadcast number 6, 3UZ, 1st May 1938.
Sir Thomas was commander-in-chief of the Australian Military Forces between 1941 and 1945.
Reproduced in ‘Well May We Say’: The Speeches that Made Australia, ed Sally Warhaft, 2004., pp. 92-93. Original source: radio broadcasts, Blamey Papers, 3DRL/ 6643 series 7/ 1 Box 59, Australian War Memorial Archive, Canberra.
‘During the 18 months before the outbreak of WWII, he broadcast an anonymous weekly radio program for station 3uz on the situation in Europe.
'The program was known only as ‘The Sentinel’, and the identity of the broadcaster was only revealed after his final program, entitled, “The Tragedy of Poland is Approaching”.
'The following extract of the sixth Sentinel broadcast, which went to air shortly after Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia, shows a sophisticated grasp of the dynamics of the Third Reich, and casts prophetic doubts on the ‘peace in our time’ that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had obtained in Munich.’
[Blamey says] “…the German coup in Austria is still fresh in our mind.
“*The key of recent German activity in Europe is to be found in the teachings of Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, widely, almost compulsorily read in Germany and without doubt expressing the German attitude today* {my emphasis - dda}.
‘The first part of this book was written in prison, but the second volume was written with the help of the German General Staff. So that when it proclaims a method it should be carefully weighed.
‘Hitler’s method has followed the book rather consistently, so I would draw your attention to this when he says:
- “However much we recognize the necessity of a reckoning with France this would yet remain ineffective if it were to become the only goal of foreign policy.
- -“It can only have sense if it acts as a cover for an enlargement of the living room of our own people in Europe.
- ‘It is not to colonial acquisition that we must look for a solution of this question, but exclusively to the acquisition of territory for settlement which will increase the area of the Motherland”.
And again:
“Do not look upon the Reich as secure if it cannot give for centuries to come its own piece of land and soil to every branch of our people”.
‘It is in this outlook that danger lies for Europe.
‘The method is to stir up by propaganda the border Germans as in Austria and to make demands by the Nazi Party leader to be followed by the menace of the national sword.
“Germany will not find it nearly so easy a task in Czechoslovakia as she found in Austria, but the pressure on Eduard Benek [Czechoslovak President] and Milan Hodza [Czechoslovak Prime Minister’ may be so great as to force them to give away much that they would not give except under the menace of their geographical isolation and weak strategical position”. END QUOTE FROM BLAMEY, and END excerpt from 'The Speeches That Made Australia'.
Blamey could second-guess Hitler because he had read Hitler’s book and saw that Hitler was following the program.
Stephen Coughlin and others like him can second-guess the jihadis and their enablers because they have read the Quran, and other classic Muslim texts, and can see that the jihadis are following the program.
Abdullah:
AM said: "True, but not specifically apes and pigs, right? "
I don't beleive I ever said you did say that. What you did say is still an insult nonetheless. I think I've pointed out here who's resorting to insults. My challenge to count insults still stands as well (I mean actual insults like name calling, not questions about Islam or conversely Christianity)
AM on Isreal: "Review the UN declarations about their violations and see how many times Israel proved it deserved the “rights” of being a sovereign nation based upon how they treated the occupied peoples…"
All things being equal you think Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Afganastan, Pakastan, Yemen, Etc. all don't deserve the rights of being soveign nations too, right?
Could you be more specific about civil rights abuses in Isreal and why you think they are occupying gaza?
The wall Isreal constructed to prevent suicide bombers to the civilians?
The military strikes back to civilian land that the rockets are coming from?
What do you think Isreal should do about Gaza's attacks? Whenever I ask this you talk about "words and deeds" but I want a REAL answer. Do you think if Isreal stopped responding to attacks the attacks and pulled out settlements, they would stop? Why? What else would Isreal have to do?
You didn't answer my quesiton about what you meant about not being reconized as a Jewish state. I showed it was by the UN, so were you wrong or did you mean not reconized by Islam/Muslim countries?
(On the story about offal AM gave)
Then AM: "It had no basis in the argument and thus no meaning. Get over it and move on."
In a word. NO. Not until you admit that the equivelence of saying a child who knows pouring offal on someone and being mature enough for sex is nonsense. To actually think this is proper line of thought is vile.
You say you want to move on to something more "fresh" but I notice you don't even actknowleged or refutured the mentioned the mobs of anti-semetic statements by the MSA and the people they host as speakers. If those who do such things are non-muslims, there are a lot of non-muslims then who think their Muslim, even here in the states. Perhaps you should try reaching out to them and tell them why their wrong giving them the equal time to the time spent here? You'd be converting a good number of people to Islam AND helping Islam's immage by correcting the hateful people who claim to be following Islam.
You never gave citations for my challange "Yet, you never see protests with Christians shouting for the death of Muslims or Jews." (I would add, not to the excent we see Muslims doing so) except for you immplication that it's all done secretly.
Misusing a logical fallacy isn't in itself a fallacy as far as I know, it's a mistake. I claimed (or rather agreed with someone who claimed) that you were using a "no true scottsman" logical fallacy. I admit that perhaps it's not exactly the same since Islam isn't a race. I completely agree, I've never had a problem understanding this.
As I pointed out it was YOU who was reminded of this before when you called poster(s) here "racist" for an anti-Islamic statement and someone else asked you "what race is Islam again?"
Still, I think he had somewhat of a point that when it is pointed out the many times Muslims kill, subjugate and call for the deaths of non-Muslims it's very convent to simply say "their not Muslim". Perhaps you'd like to tell them that?
(Sorry for the tripple post, but I saw something that was confusing in my last post)
Whe I say "I've never had a problem understanding this." I mean understanding that Islam is not a race.
Abdullah, so good of you to stop by! Please come closer, I have some Peanut shucks and Banana Peals to toss your way. They came from other visitors who cared for our well being and gave us sustenance. Unlike you who come to just mock and irritate. You should leave before the Guard comes looking for the trouble maker.
We all know, that you are all that, AND a bag of Camel Chips.
AM:
"Just thought I'd come by the zoo and look in on the animals..."
Ha. Funny. I hope you got a good chuckle out of that one. Perhaps I'll say that to the next Muslim I see coming out of his Mosque. No, I won't, because I know the meaning of the word respect.
"long live yellow journalism..." Where are the errors?
"Apes and pigs? What a lame stereotype that is. There is no place in the religion that says human beings are descended from other than human beings." Oh really. Really? You mean I won't be able to find a single example of a Muslim saying this. Or are you saying that you have the ultimate authority on all things Islamic and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong while covering your ears saying "Lalalala - can't hear you!" Just what are those qualifications? Because so far I have Islamic judges, community leaders and government representatives who would disagree with you.
35000 feet is 6 miles. In 2001, the average coverage for cell phone towers was between 15 and 20 miles. Call quality and drop outs are issues at that height, but impossible? No. "Impossible to get a cell signal at 35,000 feet" - what, do you think that cell towers send out a signal that runs along the ground?
And the "no true Scotsman" does not apply because Islam has nothing to do with race. Oh my, you surely cannot be that ignorant. "...acting on that choice outside of the guidance of Islamic Jursiprudence…if it is not an act guided by Islam it cannot be said to be “Islam.” (i.e. the person blowing up innocent people? Wrong, not Islam…that is terrorism. Got it yet?)" Ah, but they can find justification for their actions! Islam is being attacked, therefore they have an obligation to defend it. As you have pointed out in your discussions over Israel. In your opinion, are Islamic lands being attacked by Zionists/ crusaders/ Jews/ Christians? Don't Muslims have an obligation to defend those lands? How come you can't see the justification that your co-religionists see? The same justification that everyone else here can see? Dance all you want, you cannot convince an intelligent person that black is really white.
Oh and by the way I am offended by your "zoo" remarks. You hold yourself as a picture of moderation. Given enough time, even the most moderate in Islam will show their bigotry.
His understanding of technology is rather limited. Also, airlines would not ask people to shut off their cell phones before the commencement of a flight if they felt no one would be capable of making a call from one. I just wonder how it gets paid by the word or time spent. In looking at some of his more bloated posts, I would suspect by the word.
The cell signal on board a jet interferes with the communications systems on the jet itself. Derp.
And at 35,000 feet going 500 MPH... little something Mikeymike left off....the probability then of hitting a tower and keeping a signal was less than 1%...
However the call in question was made from an Airphone, so it actually happened.
I retract my statement about it being pure propoganda...it was an acutal event and the caller did ask the operator, if we are to believe her story, to recite the Lords' prayer.
As far as the passenger revolt taking the plane down?
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93.html
"The crash site, in a reclaimed strip mine, comprised a central debris field and several smaller debris fields some distance away. One of the engines was found over half a mile away from the main field. Other debris fields were found 2, 3, and 8 miles away. This evidence is virtually impossible to reconcile with the official story."
Well, the evidence on the ground proves it was shot down.
Mikeymike,
"Oh and by the way I am offended by your "zoo" remarks."
I apologize for your bruised feelings, okay now? : )
""Apes and pigs? What a lame stereotype that is. There is no place in the religion that says human beings are descended from other than human beings."
Mikeymike you wrote: "Oh really. Really? You mean I won't be able to find a single example of a Muslim saying this."
This was not the challenge...people, human beings, say all kinds of crazy things.
There is no basis or foundation in the religion that says any human being comes from other than another human being...there is no such thing as "sons of apes and pigs" that is just a human being running their mouth.
You can not prove it is "from Islam" this comment is made due to ignorance of Islam, yes, an ignorant Muslim seeking to insult someone. There is no such thing as "sons of apes and pigs."
A people were punished in antiquity for their evil and God punished them in that manner transforming them into apes and pigs...they every one of them died. They were a people destroyed...they left nothing of themselves in this life.
Peace
Abdullah
Foolster,
You wrote: "Still, I think he had somewhat of a point that when it is pointed out the many times Muslims kill, subjugate and call for the deaths of non-Muslims it's very convent to simply say "their not Muslim". Perhaps you'd like to tell them that?"
I never said that people who protest in a violent manner were not Muslims. I said certain actions can remove one from Islam when one is doing them and insisting on continuing to do them...this can remove one from Islam. Killing an innocent person is one of them...it is forbidden and it is not an act of Islam, yet counter to its teachings.
The "No true Scottsman" comment I said was racist. I did not intend you to infer that the "racist" comment in any way applied to Islam. People who are religious bigots are not racist, they are bigots.
I have my bias as well, but it is not negative projection onto others...I don't sit back and try to tell you who you are and what you believe based upon misrepresenting your religious doctrine out of context, do I?
So my bias is my own about my own faith and belief...not a projection onto others.
Understand?
Peace
Abdullah
MIkeyMike,
You wrote: ""long live yellow journalism..." Where are the errors? "
Let's help you understand something, okay?
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm
"Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involves sensationalism,"
"And unfortunately, the publisher's greed was very often put before ethics."
In a nutshell, JW to a "t."
Peace
Abdullah
AM:
Hmm. I think you should take a look at another definition. Libel:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:libel&ei=Qp_PStX6PJLYsQPGp-zEDg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE
"libelous - calumniatory: (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign"
If you can't prove it, its libel. Defining the term yellow journalism for us, or saying "In a nutshell, JW to a "t."" doesn't PROVE anything. You were asked for proof, not a definition.
AM: "did not intend you to infer that the "racist" comment in any way applied to Islam. People who are religious bigots are not racist, they are bigots."
You called someone who critisized Islam a "racist skinhead", prompting someone to ask YOU what race Islam was, so I'm not convinced you have the two straight. It was a while in the past, so perhaps you now realize you were wrong.
You didn't answer my questions on Israel. Perhaps it was too embarrassing the way it was leading.
AM on Isreal: "Review the UN declarations about their violations and see how many times Israel proved it deserved the “rights” of being a sovereign nation based upon how they treated the occupied peoples…"
All things being equal you think Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Afganastan, Pakastan, Yemen, Etc. all don't deserve the rights of being sovereign nations too, right or at least should be criticized equally with Israel?
Could you be more specific about civil rights abuses in Is real and why you think they are occupying Gaza?
The wall Israel constructed to prevent suicide bombers to the civilians?
The military strikes back to civilian land that the rockets are coming from?
What do you think Israel should do about Gaza's attacks? Whenever I ask this you talk about "words and deeds" but I want a REAL answer. Do you think if Israel stopped responding to attacks the attacks and pulled out settlements, they would stop? Why? What else would Israel have to do?
You didn't answer my question about what you meant about not being recognized as a Jewish state. I showed it was by the UN, so were you wrong or did you mean not recognized by Islam/Muslim countries?
Once again, you refuse to admit that your analogy of "old enough to know pouring offal on someone means they are old enough for sex."
I don't care if you got the person wrong, to make such an analogy is disgusting.
"I never said that people who protest in a violent manner were not Muslims. I said certain actions can remove one from Islam when one is doing them and insisting on continuing to do them...this can remove one from Islam. Killing an innocent person is one of them...it is forbidden and it is not an act of Islam, yet counter to its teachings."
So you're saying shouting racist genocidal things and "protesting in a violent manor" doesn't stop them from being Muslim? If so, my point still stands. There's hundreds if not thousands of muslims out there who are perpetrating hate that perhaps you should be ministering to and teaching them they are on the wrong path and what their doing is un-islamic, rather than preaching at the people who point out these people's disgusting actions.