In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
"Jordanian shoots dead sex victim niece as 'honour killing,'" from Sapa, July 24 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
A Jordanian man confessed to killing his 16-year-old niece to save his family's "honour" after she was sexually assaulted, a judicial official said today.The 43-year-old fired 30 machine-gun rounds in the direction of the girl yesterday, killing her instantly, at Deir Alla, west of the capital Amman, said the official who requested anonymity.
The man confessed to the murder, saying he did it to "cleanse the family honour" over suspicions of "bad behaviour" after the girl "lost her virginity a month ago in a sexual assault by a young man aged 17," said the same source.
The girl's family later married her off to a cousin "to conceal the facts," the official added, stressing that the suspect in the sexual assault was being tried.
Prosecutors have charged the uncle with "premeditated murder." Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour killings" courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family asks for leniency.
Between 15 and 20 women are murdered in honour killings each year in the kingdom, despite government efforts to curb such crimes.
Government efforts to curb such crimes? By setting only light punishments for them?
The 43-year-old fired 30 machine-gun rounds in the direction of the girl yesterday, killing her instantly..
Honor killing by machine gun...Is that a first?
What was this guy doing with a machine gun anyway?....Oh...
In Islam rape warrants a death sentence , only it's the victim that gets it.....it appears the young woman's veil did little to soften the desires of a young Muslim man....
Right now on Jihad Watch, jihadist Hesperado says that such "victims [of honour killings] are also perpetrators and enablers of the disease [of Islam] -- and as such, they are dangerous to us".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html
Scroll to comment 100. Cowardly jihadists afraid of women -- and thus having a need to kill them -- are everywhere, even here.
Who wonders? Islam is the religion of perverts. It's only digusting.
"Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
So honor murders in the family are not deterred. Another indication that Islam makes one insane. What a horror show Islam is.
Business ethics, military intelligence, and Islamic justice - oxymorons. And when women are punished for being raped - moronic.
Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
Killing your niece doesn't destroy your family?
A forty-three year old man.
A 17 year old girl.
He fires THIRTY rounds from a machine-gun at her. Overkill.
Every female in the Muslim world lives under a Sword of Damocles: a temporarily-suspended sentence of death which any Muslim male may activate and carry out as and when he chooses so to do. Dar al Islam must be like one never-ending candy store for any male born with the neurological 'glitch' that in the west manifests itself as the psychopathic serial rapist-killer; by claiming the numerous pretexts that sharia affords him, he can indulge *all* his desires to the full, not merely with impunity but with the approval of society; he is surrounded, life-long, by licit victims. Worse: sharia forcibly programs - commands and encourages - born-neurologically-normal males (and given what I know of the human genome, I find it frankly unbelievable that *all* infants born into the Ummah are *born* with genetic instructions for abnormal - psychopathic/ sociopathic - neurology) to *behave* like born-psychos. Islam - sharia - deliberately creates, nurtures, and rewards 'Killer Roosters' (look up that term).
Every *non-Muslim* in the Muslim world also lives under a Sword of Damocles; for no matter how submissive they are, how scrupulously they observe the repressive Rules for dhimmis, no matter how much jizya they pay, all it takes is for one Muslim who desires booty, sex or a little cruel fun, or the obscene rush to be obtained from killing a defenceless human being, to *claim* that they have broken the dhimma, and unloose the Mob. The workings of the 'blasphemy' law in Pakistan are one contemporary example of that; nearly all of the time the accusations of 'blasphemy!' appear to have been fabricated out of malice aforethought.
A small correction to the above.
For " Islam - sharia - deliberately creates, nurtures, and rewards 'Killer Roosters' (look up that term)" read
"Islam - sharia - deliberately teaches human males to behave like 'Killer Roosters' (look up that term)".
"Between 15 and 20 women are murdered in honour killings each year in the kingdom, despite government efforts to curb such crimes."
Right, so the real statistic would be somewhere between 40-50, maybe more.
In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
................
Murdering his little teen-age niece—someone that an uncle would protect in any normal society, because *she was raped*.
*This* is what Muslim *family values* look like–a sick inversion of everything moral and decent.
To put things in perspective a bit: if these crimes were committed in the U.S. at the same per capita rate, there would be 800 to a thousand such killings each year. Or if Courreges is correct, and the actual number much higher, then more like 2000 to 2500 per year.
"A Jordanian man confessed to killing his 16-year-old niece to save his family's "honour" after she was sexually assaulted, a judicial official said today." -- headline
Murder certainly is a backwards and evil way to save a family's "honour", now isn't it? But cold blooded murder is allah approved -- especially since allah's evil sidekick, muhammad (perdition is upon him), was a cold blooded murderer, too. islam & company are evil ...
Quran Watcher wrote:
Right now on Jihad Watch, jihadist Hesperado says that such "victims [of honour killings] are also perpetrators and enablers of the disease [of Islam] -- and as such, they are dangerous to us"....Cowardly jihadists afraid of women -- and thus having a need to kill them -- are everywhere, even here.
.................
Quran Watcher, Hesperado *is in no way* a "jihadist"—*nothing* could be further from the truth.
Hesperado certainly does not need me to come to his defense—in fact, we do not always entirely agree.
The main issue is over "moderate" Muslims and the Muslim victims of Islam. Posters such as Wellington—and frequently myself—feel a great deal of sympathy for these victims, and want to come to their aid when possible. It has often been noted that—much as Infidels have suffered under Islam—that Muslims are the main victims of Muslim violence.
Hesperado notes—quite rightly, in many cases—that just because some Muslims suffer at the hands of their vicious co-religionists, that does not mean they do not at times share many of their views and aims.
For instance, the Amadiyya—who suffer terribly at the hands of mainstream Muslims, who do not even consider them true Muslims—nonetheless hold the same aim of subjecting the entire world to the horrors of Shari'ah law. They just propose different tactics.
Many Muslim victims of Muslims are still virulent anti-Semites, or Muslim supremacists, or even violent Jihadists.
The question of how the West is to deal with these Muslims can become a contentious one. On the one hand, you don't want to leave victims of Islam to its "tender mercies"—on the other hand, you don't want to naively assume that all victims of Islam are perforce staunch believers in Western values, either.
I tend to find this split quite painful, personally. Wellington and Hesperado are two of the posters I most respect here—and two of the most staunchest anti-Jihadists imaginable. I don't think Hesperado is as harsh as some might think, nor that Wellington is in any way naive.
For the record, Quran Watch, Hesperado has often taken me to task for what he considers my naivete, as well. I probably find myself more in agreement with Wellington, as a rule—but I *do* understand Hesperado's calls for caution.
The well-meaning West does have a history of thinking the best of others—which is quite endearing, but which has many times proven itself quite dangerous to us.
My apologies if I have mischaracterized anyone's position here.
Quran Watch, you seem like a very thoughtful poster. I would urge you to reread Hesperado's posts and blog, and hope you can come to consider him a strong fellow anti-Jihadist—even if you disagree with him on some points.
When Muslims and their liberal apologists try to disassociate Islam from this barbaric practice, our response should be...
1) Umdat al Salak codifies honor killing in Islamic law
2) In contrast to the West, perpetrators in Darul Islam are almost universally treated with leniency, even in non-Sharia states
Check this out:
Muslim woman in Jordan dresses in lettuce:
http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/07/25/2333802/jordanian-police-nab-lettuce-lady.html
In non-Muslim societies past and present, a man whose teenage niece had been raped would use (or, in the law-abiding modern west, might fantasise about using) a machine-gun, not to murder his poor little raped niece, **but to blow away the rapist**.
"Right now on Jihad Watch, jihadist Hesperado says that such "victims [of honour killings] are also perpetrators and enablers of the disease [of Islam] -- and as such, they are dangerous to us"."
I've looked at the post and I'm definitely no fan of Hesperado but I must disagree with you, I don't interpret it that way.
Too bad he didn't live in Saudi Arabia. He could have gotten the government to help him.
Saudi Arabia, the center of the Islam, has now created a government-run SMS system, funded by the taxpayers, which keeps tabs on women. The SMS messages are automatically relayed to the husband so that he can figure out where his property has strayed. Women are legally classified as property in the Koran along with cattle, slaves- Saudi Arabia refuses to sign the anti-slavery conventions since Islam approves of slavery-, goats, and other goods that may be bought and traded. It is important in Islam, where a man can have many wives, cattle and goats, to know if his durable goods are on the loose.
I wonder if the Western leftist, anti-America, anti-Israel rabble are ready to allow their masters to receive SMS messages when they stray? If it's good enough for their Muslim heroes, I assume that it's good enough for them, too.
http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/muslim-technology-prevents-women-from-escaping/
Commuting her niece's life I'm sure is that last thing that the 43 year old uncle wanted.
But I'm sure now that everywhere he went, he got those looks, those words "jabaan" (coward) and Bin'nt himaar (Daughter of a donkey)just reaching his ears, a bit of a laugh as he was passing - it just became too much!
"But I'm sure now that everywhere he went, he got those looks, those words "jabaan" (coward) and Bin'nt himaar (Daughter of a donkey)just reaching his ears, a bit of a laugh as he was passing - it just became too much!"
How primitive, brutal, savage and misogynist is Islamic culture - an "Honor" culture in which females bear the full brunt for keeping the family's honor. Males are not accountable in any way. An Honor culture is grounded in female-hating by inferior chest-beating Neanderthal males.
The honor of girls/women belongs absolutely to their male relatives. Rape is not a matter of the guilt of the rapist but of the shame of the victim. The rape victim’s innocence does not matter one iota in an Honor culture. All that matters is that she, and by extension, her family, have been dishonored by the rape. The shame can only be corrected by killing the victim. Ergo, the irony is that primitive Honor cultures such as Islamic cultures have no conception of what "honor" really means - they've got it backward and twisted.
Honor cultures exhibit an obsessive concern with female chastity, family reputation and insults to family. In primitive Islamic culture just speaking to a man not her relative can get a female honor killed. It doesn't take much for the misogynist Muslim males - who are not accountable for their conduct or events beyond their control in any way - to feel "dishonored" and murder their female family member. And feel completely justified in doing so.
"Right now on Jihad Watch, jihadist Hesperado"
Whaaaaaat? Hesperado is not a jihadist. That's slander. What's your problem??
I would appear that QW misunderstood something Hesperado wrote...If he is a jihadist, he is extremely adept at stealth...
@Courreges W
Excellent insight. Your words remind me of a thousand year tradition of a different kind of honour killing in Albania.
@when*pigs*fly
Take a look again. It only becomes worse.
"Honor killings" continue to beg the question...if a victim of assault is killed to "protect the family's honor..." just how much "honor" does that family actually have?
Which begs the answer, "What honor?"
All islamic men are - quite apparently - turned on by any part of a woman's anatomy; from a stray strand of hair, or an eyelash perhaps - to the dust on their feet. Their lust is an open muslim death warrant for their victim.
I read most of that...in my opinion you are too hysterical to make a valid point...You rattle off all those personal insults and condemnations better than my xxx wife, who was an expert...If you can't challenge Hesperado without all that, then maybe you should not challenge him at all...
The appalling "roland" wrote:
Commuting her niece's life I'm sure is that last thing that the 43 year old uncle wanted.
But I'm sure now that everywhere he went, he got those looks, those words "jabaan" (coward) and Bin'nt himaar (Daughter of a donkey)just reaching his ears, a bit of a laugh as he was passing - it just became too much!
.............
Odd how "roland" can refer to the ghastly, premeditated *machine-gun murder* of a young girl perpetrated by her uncle by the bland phrasing that he "commuted" his niece's life.
He does bring up a salient point, though—one I have noted here in the past—that "honor killings" are often spurred not only by the victim's family (rather than just the sole perpetrator), but also by the entire Muslim "community".
This goes to prove that girls like Rifqa Bary are not only at threat from their murderous clan, but by the mosque and the larger Muslim "community".
This is especially appalling, because it shows that blaming a *rape victim* for her own victimization is not limited to one or two dysfunctional family members, but is the common judgment of the Ummah, as well.
Also, what sort of man is this uncle, who, in "roland's" (likely correct) estimation, would bow to peer pressure and murder his own vulnerable female relative—someone a normal human would feel protective towards? This is an adult—a *43-year-old man*—acting like an especially immature high school student accused by his peers of being "chicken".
What sort of person responds to accusations of 'cowardice' by being pressured into such a spectacularly vicious act of cowardice as *murdering his own raped niece*? And yet, this is an all too common Muslim response.
The response of any decent human would be to protect his family—and if he were to contemplate violence, it would be—as noted by Dumbledore's Army, above—violence against the rapist who hurt his niece, *not* against the poor girl herself.
*This* is Muslim "morality". *This* is what Muslim "family values" look like. And "roland's" response is what defense of this vicious and cowardly creed looks like, as well. Ugh.
"Honor killings" continue to beg the question...if a victim of assault is killed to "protect the family's honor..." just how much "honor" does that family actually have?
Which begs the answer, "What honor?"
Exactly. Phyllis Chesler calls them "Dishonor Killings," which is what they are. "Honor" has nothing to do with them, just as "peace" has nothing to do with Islam. You see how Islamic culture is all-screwed-up. No wonder they're so backward and never contributed to the world in any meaningful way (a few examples), except for oil - a total geographical accident.
@duh_swami
Like I say, it only gets worse with Hesperado.
And I don't know why you drop woman after woman after woman. Perhaps they all died of terminal disease. But that's beside the point, isn't it? Or maybe it is central to your perspective.
Why not cut to the chase? Give me your point by point arguments supporting why you think Hesperado is correct to think that a Muslim woman who is honour killed is herself the perpetrator and enabler of the crime.
Or will you just tell us all about how many wives you have been through? Fancy that.
You say: "I read most of that..." Well, learn to read all of what people write before offering any criticism. Or is the topic about women being abused and raped and dying not important enough, it being more important not to read, but only emotionally defend what someone who is trashing women has to say, even if it is something like holding that Muslim women who are honour killed are themselves the perpetrators and enablers?
duh_swami?
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn...You are far to hostile and hysterical...I like to save my responses to hysteria and hostility for Mahoundians...We are not here to tear apart Hesperado even if you think that's what JW is for...
If you keep up your breathless vendetta, I will assume you are having mental problems...And I probably will not be alone in that assessment...
So, no women's rights. Got it.
I'm not a stand in for Hesperado, go peddle your insinuations elsewhere...
Dumbledoresarmy -
Your comment brought to mind an old article about sexual rage in islamic societies.
Originally from FrontPageMagazine.com, but that link isn't working. So here is a quote from the article at http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm:
Though focusing on homosexual rape in islamic societies rather than heterosexual rape, the entire article is worth a read.
And with the above thoughts in mind, consider also islamic paradise. Losing virginity is a physically painful experience for most young girls. Islamic paradise promises an endless supply of virgins for muslim males to deflower. The virgins, once deflowered, will revert back into virgins to go through the experience again and again, for all eternity, at the pleasure of the muslim male.
What does that say about islam when the height of imaginable pleasure - physical and emotional - comes from causing repeated pain and suffering to the most innocent, weakest subjects?
Islamic misogyny, muslims male dominance, rape, child molestation, honor killings, female genital mutilation - all boils down to
male pleasure = good
female pleasure = bad
PS: Hesperado in another thread linked an interesting article about a Western woman's experience visiting a muslim country (title- "Moroccan Feminine Wiles"):
http://www.ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/articles/Moroccan-Feminine-Wiles/
Excerpt:
An eye-opening article, for sure.
They are emotionally stunted and backward because of their enslavement to Islam. Not to mention that centuries of enslavement, and savagery has caused them to become genetically sociopaths. You can put a sociopath anywhere and give him anything including intense treatment but he will remain a sociopath. There is no cure for it. We are living with huge sociopathic populations in our countries.
This guy blasted away a 16 year old rape victim who was a relative because he may have been called names. What goes on in the middle east is starting small here and will just grow. Idiot lefty women you will not be exempted. Sociopaths have no code of "honor." All a sociopath cares about is his own wants, needs and desires. A sociopath will do ANYTHING to see those needs, wants and desires are met. (in this case he wanted the name calling stopped) They have no capacity for empathy. None whatsoever and any empathy they seem to show is feigned in order to procure something they want. They ALWAYS pick on those they identify as weak (women in the middle east due to Islam) They are MASTERS OF DECEPTION and have an uncanny ability to identify weakness they can exploit in others(name calling of this weak uncle). They are in no way "honorable" They are human by DNA only.
I worked for a short while with children who were identified as sociopaths. Believe me when I tell you there is no cure and there is STRONG evidence that it is passed down to offspring. Some of the things these kids said and did were VERY frightening, yet they could not understand why others were upset by it. (honor killing is DEFENDED as cultural)
@Faye Sullivan
Yes. Exactly. Suppressed conscience.
Your account reminds me of work I also did with sociopathic children. And you're right. Zero remorse for monstrous parading of a lust for power which benefits, they think, their own little worlds.
Your statement that "honor killing us DEFENDED as cultural" speaks eloquently to the frustration to be had with those who think that culture is too big to change.
I, for one, think that women are a great strength for change in the "culture" of Islam. How do we tap into this resourse. Respect for the inalienable rights of women is my guess, even in the face of naysayers.
Thanks, Faye.
@Faye
Just to be clear!
Your statement that "honor killing is DEFENDED as cultural" speaks eloquently to the frustration to be had with [that is, in the face of] those who think that culture is too big to change.
Thanks again!
Jordanian shoots dead sex victim niece as 'honour killing,'
My father would have blown away the son of a bitch who did the raping not the other way around. It's a crazy mixed up world.
"If you keep up your breathless vendetta (against Hesperado) I will assume you are having mental problems...And I probably will not be alone in that assessment..."
No, you're not alone. "quranwatcher" has mental problems, and something needs to be done about his poisonous vendetta against Hesperado. He is ruining threads with his personal vendetta.
To the point of this post, gentlemen:
It's just that I can't get my mind around the statement of someone who says that "the victims [of islamic violence (such as women suffering honour killings)] are perpetrators and enablers."
Why is it hard for some to accept that such a statement of his is nefarious. Nefas est.
Is Jihad Watch just about stories elsewhere, or is it also about how such stories are analogously playing out right here in the United States, right here in England, right in my hometown, right wherever "here" happens to be?
Yes, I think it is terrible that a girl gets honour killed because she was raped against her will.
I also think it is terrible that someone says that such an honour killing is her own fault, that she is the perpetrator and enabler.
On behalf of suffering women, I will complain about anyone who says or defends such a statement, even if I'm called a fool for doing so.
What difference, I ask, does it make if some Muslims say that women are liable to be honour killed because they were raped against their will, or if a non-Muslim supports that women are liable to be honour killed by Muslims because such women were raped against their will?
I will fight for women's right to life in either case.
I think Jihad Watch is also about fighting for women's right to life, whether the threat to them is coming from honour killing Muslims, or from non-Muslims who support the horror that some Muslims think that women who have been raped against their will are liable to be honour killed.
Faye and quranwatcher failed to realize that women are more often than not conplicit in honor killings. Those are tough minds to change/influence.
@Samira
Sure they are, with a beretta held under their throats.
But that kind of duress changes the level of culpability just a bit, don't you think?
Ever been tortured, Samira, or are you just spouting off from ignorance about this kind of violence?
It's just that I can't get my mind around the statement of someone who says that "the victims [of islamic violence (such as women suffering honour killings)] are perpetrators and enablers."
quranwatcher is evidently ignorant of the psychological phenomenon called Stockholm Syndrome -- and he augments that ignorance by failing to notice the mountain of evidence about Muslim societies that indicates that this syndrome is profoundly worse -- deeper and broader and with more pernicious consequences -- among Muslims than among the people of any other culture on earth and perhaps throughout history. Does this mean we should not pity them? Of course we should pity them. But when the safety of our societies is being threatened in unprecedented and unprecedentedly complex and confounding ways, we must attend to our own first. And does it mean there do not exist Muslim victims of Islam who are relatively unafflicted with the syndrome, such that they really genuinely are not perpetrators of the disease of Islam (for even merely defending Mohammed, for example, is a perpetration of the disease of Islam)? Of course not: I'm sure they do exist somewhere out there. The problem is we cannot sufficiently determine who or where they are in terms of macro policies of our self-defense, and for us to implement broad policies based upon an axiomatic assumption that we can determine such things would be, in the long run, at the peril of hundreds of thousands of us, if not millions.
Ordinarily, I eschew words like "hysterical" and "attack" because they smack of hyperbole (and more often than not they are used in wildly labile ways on Net discussions): But in the case of quranwatcher, they are accurate, if not even mild, descriptors of his comportment.
gravenimage, I appreciate you taking the time to point out the record that was already set straight before quranwatcher rampaged through like a bull in a china shop.
I would only amend two of your points:
Your characterization of one aspect of my position -- "that just because some Muslims suffer at the hands of their vicious co-religionists, that does not mean they do not at times share many of their views and aims".
That locution has a bit too much padding in it; the predicament is in my estimation considerably worse and more confounding for us. It is not merely "many of their views and aims" but the general xenophobia and supremacism augmented by varying degrees of their encoded fanaticism, all of which leads many (if not most) of these otherwise non-jihadist Muslims to enable the jihadists materially in a variety of ways, ranging all the way from not telling authorities about suspicious behavior in the community or in the family, to allowing family and friends to use one's property or mailboxes for suspicious meetings or packages, to more concrete degrees of active support. Outside of these kinds of material enablings of jihadism, the mere presence in numbers of these ostensibly non-jihadist Muslims serves to aggrandize the escalating intrusion of Islam into the West on all levels, from demographic to ideological, which in and of itself serves to enable the grand jihad. Furthermore, and closely related to this, the active and/or passive assertion of non-jihadist Muslims as a growing sociological and ideological force within the West serves to reinforce the myth that there exists a harmless brand of Islam. These are the kinds of complex problems with the "diversity" of Muslims that most people, even the wary among us, often do not think through.
Another statement you made I would also amend:
"Quran Watch, you seem like a very thoughtful poster."
Just a slight correction to this: delete the "very thoughtful" and replace it with "stark raving insane and hysterical". :)
@Hesperado
So.
To the point of this post.
With all your verbosity, why can't you explain your very own words of the other day? ...
Talk all you want Hesperado. Until you repudiate this your statement, and others like it (e.g., concerning the Constitution), why should anyone think you are not supporting Sharia style hatred of women?
Saying that a woman raped against her will may as well be honour killed since she is the one who is the perpetrator and enabler... That's really just too much.
If you not a jihadist, but are only effectively acting like one in supporting this and other aspects of Sharia, well, that is worse than a jihadist.
I'm just waiting for you to repudiate what you said, your own words. That's the whole of it. To date, you will not or cannot, for whatever reason.
Too bad for all women.
"Saying that a woman raped against her will may as well be honour killed since she is the one who is the perpetrator and enabler"
Obviously, she's not the perpetrator of her own rape. It is eminently reasonable for us, knowing what we should know about Muslim societies and psychology, however, to assume that innumerable Muslim victims (of the myriad victimizations Islam offers -- not only rape and honor killing but female genital mutilation, barbaric punishments for crimes, tortures of prisoners, etc.) continue to harbor a defense of Islam in their minds and hearts even though they are victimized. That's the profundity of the Islamic disease, and the depth of its brainwashing: even its victims support the monster who is victimizing them: Muhammad, the Koran, Allah, the Ummah, Islam. Simply being against some Imam or some Ayatollah is not sufficient. Substituting an Ayatollah Montazeri for an Ayatollah Khomeini (or Khamenei) while leaving the underlying monster intact is not only useless, it tends to perpetuate the problem whose global menace is metastasizing in our time.
This would only be tragic, and deserving of our unalloyed pity and then galvanized succor were there not a formidable, complex, confounding and horrifically lethal threat being generated by Muslims throughout the world and increasingly within the West. This latter context trumps the pity and the succor. Quranwatcher should stop begging the West to help Persians (and frantically frothing at the mouth at Westerners like me who don't want to help Muslims but want to help Westerners first), and go rally fellow Persians help themselves. Why does the West always have to save the Third World from its own pathologies? In this latter context, we have to help our own first. After we are sure we are secure, maybe then we can help others.
So, no rupudiation of his own words. Just more words.
Let's make a couple of quotes, one from the other day, one from just above.
Remember, the context is about women who are victims liable to honour killings. The following are the words of Hesperado; the emphasis by quranwatcher:
There we are.
Now, his words above, with the emphasis of quranwatcher:
So, he only gets more entrenched against women. Wow...
=========
@Hesperado, you only talk against women like this because, unlike them, you've never had a knife slicing through your throat, blood spurting everywhere. You have zero idea what is going through the mind of a woman who is being honor killed after being raped against her will. Really. Nothing. You only know your ideology cut off from the reality of the humanity we all live. Women getting decapitated after being raped against their will are not, as you say, "angry flesh-eating bacteria or viruses or spider mites." And when they are dead, they don't "continue to harbor a defense of Islam in their minds and hearts even though they are victimized." Really, Hesperado, they don't. It seems that, for you, women are the real enemy. Even when they are dead, it is still not good enough for you. And that's really creeping me out. You are one scarey dude. And yes, I do know about the Stockholm Syndrome, and help victims out of that, but you seem to want to get such adulation by brow beating such women. Like I say, you are really creeping me out.
============BTW:
Hesperado: "Quranwatcher should stop begging the West to help Persians."
Um, like, that really came out of nowhere. Persians? Oh, right, the one comment I made about the young people in Iran being particularly open to the West. I guess Hesperado really doesn't like that, or what? Again, those kind of comments of his just strike me as being made by a jihadist who feels betrayed by the ever increasing Western mentality of Iranian young people.
Ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish has some very telling observations on the subject of the toleration of 'honor' killings, which I myself would call 'pride murders' or 'de facto ritual human sacrifice of females', within Islamic societies. Darwish grew up in Egypt.
In her book on Sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', she states that in all the thirty years she lived in Islamic Egypt, she never once heard any Islamic cleric condemn ‘honor’ killing of women.
“They say Islam has nothing to do with honor killing, but I have never heard a Friday sermon prohibiting it and quoting scriptures that condemn it. Men who commit that crime are rarely punished, and even then the punishment is very light”. (p. 72)
And she also states (and this is very important) -
‘If honor killing was truly a crime unacceptable to Islam, Sharia Law could have certainly frightened men away from committing it.
'But honor killing falls into perfect harmony with the Muslim view of women and their sexual oppression.
'From the least to the most educated, from the least to the most religious, the reaction is the same; no one makes a public stand and no-one reports it, not even the religious leaders”. (p. 73)
{Wicked Islamophobe that I am, I cited those passages in an article about women under sharia, that I just published in our parish magazine [which I edit - teehee!], having first presented it to our local branch of the Mothers' Union}.
Above, I quoted Nonie Darwish.
Here, now, is something from John Roy Carlson, "From Cairo to Damascus", page 366 of the first edition (1951).
It relates the actual plot of an actual Arab Muslim-made movie (filmed in Egypt) that Carlson watched in Jordan sometime in 1948.
"The film was an Egyptian tale about a Bedouin triangle in which a desert sheikh contrived to kidnap the fiancee of another sheikh the night before the wedding.
"The lover was killed **and the girl murdered by her father for letting herself be kidnapped, and presumably kissed** {my emphasis - dda}.
"As for the ending, nobody lived happily ever after.
"Thus Arab [sic: Muslim] justice triumphed - for there is no greater sin in the lexicon of Arab [sic: but one could just as well write 'Muslim'] morals than feminine unchastity.
"**No one cares about the morals of the male** {my emphasis - dda}."
AND, for my third Quote of the Day,
here is one 'Conor Cruise O'Brien', writing in the London Times, May 1989 - "Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive...It looks profoundly repulsive because it *is* repulsive...A westerner who claims to admire Muslim society, whilst still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus or a bit of both. **At the heart of the matter is the Muslim family, an abominable institution** {my emphasis - dda}".
Pursuant to my posting above.
I just did some quick internet research on 'Conor Cruise O'Brien'. I discovered that he was an Irish "politician, writer, historian and academic", born in 1917 and died in December 2008. Wikipedia states primly that "He retained a radical outlook, yet his career took a left to right wing path; he was strongly interested in the progress of South Africa, **and in later years took a pro-Israel stance** {my emphasis - dda}, and that "Perhaps his most controversial work is 'The Siege' (1989), a sympathetic history of Zionism and the State of Israel".
Haven't read that one: but given the bracing clarity of O'Brien's perception of Muslim mores, I think I had better put it on my 'things to read' list.
I would urge some UK jihadwatcher to hit the libraries, find back issues of 'The London Time and then spool through every page of that paper that appeared in May 1989 till you find the full article by Mr C. C. O'Brien from which the excerpt I have just shared, was taken by the public-spirited person who turned said excerpt loose in cyberspace. I think it might be worth knowing what the rest of the article was like.
Hesperado, thanks for responding.
Please note, I replied to Quran Watcher here before reading the whole of the "Sharia in New Jersey" thread.
Further information.
Conor Cruise O'Brien's trenchant judgement upon the abominable nature of the Muslim family, was made in an article entitled "The Sick Man of the World" [the 'sick man' being Islam], which appeared in The Times, London, on 11 May 1989. In the same article he also wrote - “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken”.
True, Graven ...Hesp is not a jihadist, so "quranwatcher" is lying and he is a total nutjob, and a useful idiot as well. His ridiculous rants are like so many other muslims that have posted in the past, whom come on here starting out seemingly nice and appear to be against jihad, only to have them turn on a dime like a rabid dog going for blood. "quranwatcher" is one such poster whose only contribution of late has been one lie after another. He stands in line along with so many other mohammedans who twist and lie about what posters have said. He is one very evil person.
"Whaaaaaat? Hesperado is not a jihadist. That's slander. What's your problem??"
I think the problem has become clear ...qw is a mohammedan troll. In less than a week he went from being a somewhat mild mannered Kent Clark type -- to now, SuperNasty Man who is lying about Hesp being a "jihadist" along with other garbage and lies. His comments went from being somewhat nice in the beginning, to now out-in-out egregious lies. Generally, the only posters that do that are mohammedans, soooo ....
Great research DDA.
I would look through those back issues myself, but I am not now in the UK. Soon, perhaps.
Thanks again. Very useful.
@Hesperado: "Quranwatcher should stop begging the West to help Persians."
Headsmack! Now I remember why Hesperado is saying this. Marisol was surmising the state of Jihad Watch availability in Iran for me in another thread, and I responded about the friendly technical help that can be had from המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים, who helped me on an identifier blog a while back.
And that is why Hesperado thinks I am "begging the West to help Persians." Well, I'm not begging. The Mossad are really pretty friendly. No need for begging. And that help in bringing Jihad Watch into view in Iran would indeed help "Persians", especially young people, in coming to have a clearer perspective. I'm happy to be of service with this little piece of advice that was so helpful to me.
But... I guess Hesperado thinks that Israeli Intel and Special Ops are... (wait for it)... "frothing at the mouth" because they are cramping his style. Riiight! Got it now! Took me a while. I'm getting a bit older now. LOL.
So... Hesperado... I guess you really despise Jihad Watch being viewed in Muslim majority countries. Wow. Now we know.
!מט, כלי שחמט
Thanks champ & gravenimage, and others who can see the evident unhingedness of quranwatcher -- or is it calculated trollery? Hard to tell. Two things now make me wonder if he is not really a She with a Double A (wink, wink):
1) I have never encountered anyone on the Internet who manages to twist my words and arguments into monstrously inaccurate taffy with as much mad-eyed deftness as Morgaan Sinclair -- until these past few days with quranwatcher. Every point I make, ever locution, ever phrase is seized upon by "him" and twisted grotesquely into the service of his mad hobbyhorse against me.
2) Amid the thrashing waves of his obsession against me, one them keeps repeating: his hallucination that some pernicious misogyny motivates my positions (or rather, motivates the bizarre contortions quranwatcher has caricatured as my positions): "So, he only gets more entrenched against women. Wow..."...@Hesperado, you only talk against women like this because..."; etc.
As for the Persian connection -- that could simply be a subterfuge, or it could have some consanguinity with the Turkish Sufi Naqshbandi mysticism with which the Lady of the Double A was so enamored and in which she seemed to have invested some rather disconcerting soteriological significance not merely, one conjectures, in a private sense, but also in a public, cultural, political and civilizational sense, pace her "friend of the family"'s mentor, Fethullah Gulen.
Slight correction (in bold):
"Amid the thrashing waves of his obsession against me, one theme keeps repeating..."
You're welcome, Hesp; and is qw the notorious and recycled MS? Well, maybe. Whoever she is, "quranwatcher" should be banned for the egregious lies that she has written thusfar about you (and me as well) going on two or three days now, and she needs to be stopped ...
I always hear "hey ignore the trolls", but that is really hard to do when the lies are about YOU, now isn't it? ...or about someone you care about.
True champ, but I think I've gotten over quranwatcher by now (lord knows I have ignored 90% of his wild accusations).
@Champ:
You make a distinction between:
1. ""quranwatcher" should be banned"
. . . and
2. "needs to be stopped"
=========
An actual threat, beyond electronic. A new low. But to be expected.
Also, I'm not Morgaan Sinclair. Don't bother Morgaan Sinclair.
=========
But you all might want to take a look at Morgaan Sinclair's apology to Robert Spencer:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/09/a-letter-of-apology.html
...and then follow her example, offering an apology about your views on how women who are honour killed are the perpetrators and enablers. Really, to hold that view about raped and honour killed women is classic misogyny.
I have expressed my apprehension about the safety of women who have left Islam when such misogyny seemed to bear down on their personal safety in some threads in recent days. I think, rightly so.
"...and then follow her example, offering an apology about your views on how women who are honour killed are the perpetrators and enablers. Really, to hold that view about raped and honour killed women is classic misogyny."
You are LYING about me -- again, as I never made such a comment, nor do I hold such a view. So, I do not owe anyone an apology, as you allege. BTW, I have reported your abuse to Robert Spencer.
Just to be clear: "your views", meaning anyone who supports a perspective which holds that women are the perpetrators and enablers of of their own victimhood.
If the one called champ is saying that champ doesn't support such a perspective of anyone who just might have such a perspective, good for champ. Glad to hear it.
I wish you the best.
You wrote your comment TO ME, so of course you were addressing me. And on a different thread you actually accused me of being "misogynistic", which I am not; and then poster Gravenimage kindly defended me, because she knows that you are lying about me, too. Fortunately, many posters know me pretty well, so your accusations and out-in-out lies will not work with them.
Take your bullshit and be gone, troll ...
Buh-bye!
You insist. So, let me make the effort to recall this even more clearly for you. There are other commentators involved in this recall, since the thread was a bit chaotic. But let's just bring this right back to you, shall we? Ready?
It did seem that you had offered support to someone on this very topic when that someone had views which supported the bit about women being liable to being victims while also being perpetrators and enablers. Your support of that someone seemed to be rather, um, emphatic, to say the least, though with, perhaps, mitigating factors of a possible friendship with that person.
Let's take, for instance, a very recent example when I asked this question about that other person's perspective:
I had asked that since this othe person had said this:
Your very next response to my question repeated just above, was just hours ago, and was before that other person said anything else. You wrote this:
But I rejoice, I'm sure with many others, to the point of this thread, that you now disavow any misperception of such support for that other person's perspective, and are happy to be known as someone who emphatically disagrees with any perspective that would hold women as being liable to being victims while at the same time being perpetrators and enablers. Wonderful!
I only wish some other commentators would be so clear, finally, about their true perspectives.
So, congratulations, champ. Again, I wish you all the best.
And I do hope you mean me no harm with your comment about me being stopped beyond anything like an electronic banning.
While I appreciate all my defenders thus far, it is conspicuously noteworthy that no one has addressed head-on the one specific bee in quranwatcher's bonnet -- the phenomenon of ultra-Stockholm Syndrome in Islam or, as I put it, that in Muslim societies, the victims are perpetrators and enablers of the disease of Islam; that in Muslim societies, the victims continue to support the same monster that is tormenting them (which, as I also said, would merely be a tragic pity deserving our unhesitating succor, were that same monster not also threatening our societies with horrific mass murder and incalculable destruction of property and social disorders).
This may be neither here nor there; for, if I thought that quranwatcher were a rational human being and would stop thrashing around like a combination of a monomaniacal ideologue and a 7-year-old with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, then I might think it would be worthwhile for some other Jihad Watch commenters to pitch in here -- not necessarily to agree completely or even predominantly with my position, but at least to address the important nuances lost on quranwatcher's raving eyeballs. I suspect, however, that were anyone to do so, it would not only not mollify quranwatcher one whit, it would only aggravate his fanaticism.
"And I do hope you mean me no harm with your comment about me being stopped beyond anything like an electronic banning."
Ridiculous. I don't wish you ANY harm.
Suggesting that you are banned is not for the purpose of harming you, but to stop you from harming others through your lies. Come on, lies are harmful, so quit playing the victim about 'being' harmed. No one here is the least bit interested in reading your lies and twisted invectives about other posters.
I wish NO ONE any harm, but I only wish to PROTECT other posters from liars like you -- which is a far cry and a big difference from the wrongheaded motives that you have just ascribed to me.
If you are unwilling to stick to the facts regarding comments made by others, then you need to leave Jihad Watch. Again, no one cares to read your silly lies, as you are the one causing harm. Not me.
"...the phenomenon of ultra-Stockholm Syndrome in Islam or, as I put it, that in Muslim societies, the victims are perpetrators and enablers of the disease of Islam; that in Muslim societies, the victims continue to support the same monster that is tormenting them" ...
Excellent point, Hesp ...and you're right. Said poster is suffering from the aforementioned syndrome, and the disease has reached the advanced stages of development -- as noted in his inane and insane comments. And I would also like to point out that he has mastered the art of islamic-victimhood, as well. Another aspect and putrid outgrowth of 'islamitis'.
PS ...
"islamic-victimhood" is not only a muslims rite of passage, but it is incumbent upon all good mohammedans to achieve "IV" during his or her lifetime. And in order to achieve this ignoble goal, a muslim must also exercise and perfect his allah given right to lie ABOUT, and TO, the infidel.
qw serves as Exhibit A in having achieved this milestone. Bravo.
Correction:
qw only THINKS that he has achieved this goal, lol ...
Hesperado, the ethnic cleanser?
Hesperado: Your oft calls for getting rid of all Muslims from the U.S.A. goes to the point of your societal version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Apologies in advance to your hangers on. I don't mean to give them a heart attack with the title of this post. I'm sure you've been waiting for this all along and are more than ready for a response.
In view of your hangers on, why don't we put this across with a wikipedia article, which has the benefit of being available for everyone to read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
===========
"Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism that has come to be used broadly to describe all forms of ethnically-motivated violence, ranging from murder, rape, and torture to the forcible removal of populations.[1] A 1993 United Nations Commission defined it more specifically as, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."[1] The term entered English and international media usage in the early 1990s to describe war events in the former Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo and Bosnia.
The term ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Simply put, ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[2] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."[3] Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."[4] Thus, these concepts are different, but related, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."[5]
Definitions
The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."[7]
The term ethnic cleansing has been defined as a spectrum, or continuum by some historians. In the words of Andrew Bell-Fialkoff:
[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of a population from a given territory.[8]
Terry Martin has defined ethnic cleansing as "the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory" and as "occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end."[9]
[...]
For the most part, ethnic cleansing is such a brutal tactic and so often accompanied by large-scale bloodshed that it is widely reviled. It is generally regarded as lying somewhere between population transfers and genocide on a scale of odiousness, and is treated by international law as a war crime. Ethnic cleansing may be seen as a policy aimed to stabilise the borders of the State.
Armenian civilians, being cleansed from their homeland during the Armenian Genocide Ethnic cleansing as a crime under international law
There is no formal legal definition of ethnic cleansing.[27] However, ethnic cleansing in the broad sense - the forcible deportation of a population - is defined as a crime against humanity under the statutes of both International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[28] The gross human-rights violations integral to stricter definitions of ethnic cleansing are treated as separate crimes falling under the definitions for genocide or crimes against humanity of the statutes.[29]
The UN Commission of Experts (established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780) held that the practices associated with ethnic cleansing "constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore ... such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention." The UN General Assembly condemned "ethnic cleansing" and racial hatred in a 1992 resolution.[30]
There are however situations, such as the expulsion of Germans after World War II, where ethnic cleansing has taken place without legal redress (see Preussische Treuhand v. Poland). Timothy V. Waters argues that if similar circumstances arise in the future, this precedent would allow the ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.[31]
===========
Hesperado: Could it be that the one who incites, little by little, in this way and that, what might well turn out to be a violent ethnic cleansing... could it not be that he would then actually be guilty of crimes against humanity and/or war crimes if it does turn out to be violent indeed?
I know you have thought about this already within/yet outside the context of the legal framework of the United States. But why not spit it out even more explicitely in this context. I do believe that some of your followers are not getting your full intent. We will see if you are able to avoid applying your words about "Miss Universe" to yourself, having your Stockholm Syndrome and eating it too (one of your previous posts).
Champ:
Thanks for the reassurance.
Let's read Hesperado together. He's talking about me not understanding his policy of ethnic cleansing:
In other words, for him, I need to be ethnically cleansed, as does everyone who has converted from Islam, as Hesperado has said elsewhere...
Yep.
Thank you ...
You have effectively and officially demonstrated just how delusional and paranoid you truly are. And assuming that Hesp did in fact write that statement, it in NO WAY even so much as INSINUATES "ethnic cleansing", as you purport.
You are a LIAR, plain and simple. That much is obvious.
And feel free to reply to my comment, but I will not be reading it -- since I will no longer revisit this thread and subject myself to any more of your idiotic suppositions.
Instead of writing me back, why don't you simply put this comment before Robert, and then let HIM decide if Hesp has suggested "ethnic cleansing". Yeah, I bet Robert could use a good laugh from a clown like you, lol ...
Hesperado, I'm sure you can share your words with Champ, who forgot what you said with selective remembrance. Here are your words promoting ethnic cleansing, Hesperado:
Ethnic cleansing in the offing.
Right here on Jihad Watch.
Attention FBI: If you guys can't do a bit of comparison between the way this guy writes and the movements of ethnic cleansing/genocide, you are in for a big surprise. You are already seen as "effectively enabling the enemy," as he said.
While quranwatcher is busily weaving his paranoid fantasy about me, he might also want to include Hugh Fitzgerald in his black list, who has written approvingly of another policy of mass expulsion of a people -- the Benes Decree(s), by which Czechoslovakia expelled over three million Germans, including Germans who had become citizens of Czechoslovakia, and including Germans who had family roots in Czechoslovakia going back generations:
Benes and Masaryk were wise, tolerant, advanced statesmen, two who belonged to an older and better educated generation. They had no hesitation in implementing the Benes Decree(s) of 1946, and in banishing the Sudeten Germans who had proved to be such a threat. For them, for the Czechs, Germany lay prostrate, but they were not about to take another chance. And no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral—save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war.
Why should the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, and the other countries of Europe not recognize a siimilar permanent danger in their midst? And if Germany was prostrate in 1946, the world of Islam is hardly prostrate today, but feels itself, with that ten trillion dollars in OPEC money received since 1973, with all the aid, a disguised Jizyah, that is received, almost as tribute, by Muslim states and nascent statelets that have no oil or gas, but are able to count on the foreign aid—a disguised Jizyah—that the Infidels provide. Study the threats, and the intelligent response to recognized threats, in the not-so-distant past.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/08/dutch-politician-to-fight-back-against-rapper-who-threatened-him-with-death.html#comment-448652
Or, more forcefully:
...ideas that have frequently been mentioned, and thought openlly [sic] about, right here at JW -- to wit, a Benes Decree that would deal with Muslims as the same kind of security threat that Benes and Masaryk and all Czechs in 1946, and since, regarded the Sudeten Germans, whom they overnight expelled, all 3.5 million of them.
It can happen. And short of that, all sorts of ways can be thought of to make countries Muslim-hostile rather than Muslim-friendly. Little by little by little, this can be accomplished.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008467.php
Benes and Masaryk were among the most intelligent and tolerant spirits in all of Europe. Look what they felt justified, even compelled to do, with the Sudeten Germans in 1946. And no Czech then, or now, thinks they have the slightest reason to feel guilty -- and very few others, outside the circles of German revanchism. Were some of those Sudeten Germans (but only some) innocent? Yes. And so were some of those killed in Allied bombing raids over Tokyo or Berlin or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden. That is what happens, and has to happen, in modern warfare.
...
I offered the Benes Decree in the first place to remind readers, or to let them know, that there have been, along with all the obvious examples of unjustified and horrible expuslions, those that in the past have had reasonable justification, and have not been criticized by almost all (I have added that modifier) of those who either were citizens of the country carrying out the expulsions, or citizens of other countries with the most immediate experience of what triggered such behavior (the successful appeals, by Hitler, to populations of Volksdeutsche all over the place, who when the Nazis occupied a country, automatically received special treatment different from the non-Germans, and very often enthusiastically collaborated with the German occupiers).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008522.php
Hesperado's rules for ethnic cleansing include President Obama among those to be immediately subject to Hesperado's ethnic cleansing.
Lets do some in line commentary, shall we? Let's see how Hesperado has his cake and eats it too, except the cake is the United States Constitution. Having digested it, he will have it, but merely as his own excrement. These are his words [with my comments in brackets]:
"our sociopolitical apparatus [U.S. Constitution] reconfiguring for the long haul [But amendments that remove inalienable rights of citizens who would have been innocent until proven guilty, amount to destroying the Constitution] of our war [Whoa! A war declared by who? You? A private war within the boarders of the United States?] against an enemy [ALL Muslims are enemies for him] whose nature will make it difficult -- tragically difficult -- to save such putative victims of Islam [in context, women raped against their will or those converting away from Islam, and are honour killed, whom he thinks are the perpetrators and enablers and therefore merely putative victims, are to be abandoned into the larger ethnic cleansing he envisions. Keep reading:]. There are times during catastrophes [But he is talking about the Muslim population as a population, in the U.S.A., just the fact of it, right now] where one cannot save everyone [with ALL Muslims not being saved], and in order to save the largest number of people [All non-Muslims], a certain number are tragically consigned to death [ALL Muslims], else most or all the people [All non-Muslims] would die [because for him, ALL Muslims, even those who converted from Islam, like Magdi Allam, et alii, are wanting to murder all non-Muslims. ALL.]. The fight against Islam [his 'final solution' version] isn't like taking selective surgical pot-shots [FBI: note the words belonging most naturally to a sniper talking about sniping: "selective", "surgical", "shots"] at an enemy who clearly identifies himself on a ridge [But for you it is, as you now say:]: it is a profoundly confounding situation [Get a counselor for your frustration!] where millions of motile members [because they are not yet in a concentration camp?] of an ideological diaspora [which is 100% always the same, even for those who convert from Islam, right?] are infiltrating our societies [ALL Muslims are infiltrating, by the millions, who are motile! What intrigue!] and innumerable numbers [which he has already said practically include ALL muslims] among these teeming [He's afraid of children], difficult-to-identify [paranoid] and difficult-to-manage masses [except by way of his prejudicial profiling] are fanatically seeking to mass-murder us with any means possible -- radioactive, biological, chemical [Remember, he is talking about ALL men, women and children, even infants, all terrorists, ALL of them! Riiight! He's dangerous.]. In the light of this formidable and escalating danger in the years ahead [note the immediacy of the time-line, starting now and into the immediate future], we as a civilization [Don't forget, he's already ditched "our sociopolitical apparatus" the Constitution, his cake] will have to take collective measures that will likely be unable to avoid collateral damage [ethnic cleansing which would not necessarily fall short of genocide, as we will now see:]. The tragic aspect of that necessity does not make that necessity any less necessary: that's why we call it "tragic". Being Western, of course, we will try to minimize those tragic casualties [a word which naturally has one think, in this context, of force that uses violence, which can turn ethnic cleaning into genocide]; but only an idealistic fool [all who hold up the U.S. Constitution] would entertain Miss Universe [more misogyny?] notions of having one's cake and eating it too, and thus of magically ridding life of tragedy [while he undoes the U.S. Consitution, our Country, forcing himself on the entire population, his version of having his cake and eating it too]. And to the degree that such fools have actual effects on our policy [thanks for that!], they no longer amuse [no apology from me, not for a such a megalomaniac]. Anyone who would by some abstract principle [The U.S. Constitution!] dressed up in moral outrage [holding up the U.S. Constitution] hinder the development of that necessary means of our self-defense [the undoing of the Constitution so as to hold himself up: not "we the people" but "Hesperado, self-proclaimed saviour by way of ethnic cleansing"] is not on our side [Thanks be to God], but is, whether they realize it or not, effectively enabling the enemy. [Rather, they are respecting the Contitution and insisting on respect of that Consitution by ALL within the borders of the U.S.A., which is not good enough for Hesperado.]
===========
Go ahead Hesperado. Why don't you start naming those you would like to subject -- starting immediately -- to your program of ethnic cleansing?
A girl was already named as someone who might just be one of your tragic cases. But why not let the girl go? Pick on someone your own size. Or are you a coward? Why not pick on someone like, say, President Obama?
According to your own rules, President Obama's being a Muslim as a child would make him liable to your profiling for ethnic cleansing.
FBI?
============
Hesperado. If I'm wrong, show me. But let's use your words, shall we?
Now, back to the Stockholm Syndrome. Hesperado is so traumatised by his adversary, Islam, as with an extreme form of PST defense mechanism, that he has let himself be defined by his adversary. He is merely in reaction to his adversary but is without an identity. He perpetuates and enables the problem by doing the bidding of his adversary, in this case, the undoing of the U.S. Constitution, the dismissal of protecting from honour killing those who have converted away from Islam, who have been raped, etc. All these things belong to a jihadist mentality, as I have said from the beginning. Isn't this to the direct point of this thread? I should think so.
Those who would scream in support of Hesperado, that he actually wants to do away with Muslims, and therefore can't possibly be a jihadist, have not paid enough attention to Hesperado as one who suffers, as a victim, from Stockholm Syndrome, acting like whatever Muslims with whom he has dealt. He wanted to pay more attention to the Syndrome, so, here we are.
Hesperado, might I suggest that you follow the example of Robert Spencer, who does not hold that ALL Muslims are exactly the same. Might I suggest that you uphold natural law and the Constitution. If not...
Why not be a man, show yourself. Go to the White House and say that you want to begin your ethnic cleansing programme with President Obama. Don't be violent. Just inform the gentlemen at the gate of your plans. Be brave! Be a man! Perhaps they can explain the matter to you.
Or are you not as good as your word?