Quote of the day: Khomeini spits on those who say Islam is peaceful

Stealth Jihad never was on the agenda in the Iranian Ayatollah Regime.

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Although I disagreed with the Grand Ayatollah's fatwa to make 9 yr old girls street legal, with this statement I can wholeheartedly agree.

*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 196 ***

Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword!

Sword = non-nuclear explosives, thermonuclear explosives, plane highjackings, knives (Theo), kidnappings and firearms.

Shadow of the sword = the 6th Pillar of Islam (Hoop). obeisance in our schools, media, courts, churches and synagogues, permanent gubmint, and even corporate board rooms..

OT

Shopping centre bosses approve 'Asian squat toilets' following cultural awareness course

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294630/Shopping-centre-management-install-Asian-stand-toilets-following-cultural-awareness-course.html#ixzz0tfQIFm6r

SIOA and/or JW should make copies of this speech and send it by post to all the people who are in a position to influence life in USA but who (possibly out of ignorance) still don't acknowledge that islam is a threat to freedom and happiness to all people everywhere on earth.
Even though the statement is dated, it is every bit as relevant as it was on the day it was made.

Thanks Robert, that's such a great quote from our enemy's own mouth. This obviously means that at the very least the entire Iranian Islamic regime is in a state of perpetual war against the non-muslim world and certainly a fundamentalist segment of the Iranian and the broader muslim population would be also.

This ought to lead rational minds to only one logical and inescapable conclusion: in order to end the war started and perpetuated by Islam (and its band of warmongering barbarians), this death cult must be ended by any means. Additionally all muslim countries must be democratized and given the same freedoms and liberties that we enjoy and take for granted.

This quote is also very liberating because it confirms what we've known all along and settles any doubts (for those who had them) about Islam's true intentions. As well, it means that preemptive warfare against muslims is fully justified and legitimate because it is in self-defense (since they hope to conquer us).

Of course I won't hold my breath for our "intelligence agencies," MSM and intellectual/political elites to suddenly wake up out of their self-induced stupor and delusional thinking and fight the jihad in earnest, but at least the facts are there for anyone willing to look at them honestly and confront the threat squarely.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams

"I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
And I spit on you, on your unholy books and on your self-proclaimed prophet who used to wear make-up and dress in women's clothing.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/drawing-muhammad-dessiner-mahomet.html

The late great Jeff Cooper, father of the modern technique of the pistol, concluded his book "Principles of Personal Defense" with the following deathless words:

"Apart from the odds that you will be killed anyway if you submit to threats of violence, it would seem – espcially in today’s world of permissive atrocity – that it may be your social duty to resist. ... If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim. ...
George Patton told his officers, ‘Don’t worry about your flanks. Let the enemy worry about his flanks. It is high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and to let the criminal start worrying about society. And by society I mean you."

As jihad is a violent crime and its perpetrators are criminals (and it has been so ever since Muhammad and his gang began robbing merchant caravans in Arabia), these words apply equally to our present-day enemy. Walk heavy and watch your six.

"Khomeini spits on those who say Islam is peaceful."

I'm with you, ayatollah; I spit on them too.

Might does NOT make right.

The thing about the lack of identity which goes along with the tyranny of relativism entrenched among many in Western governments is that this lack of identity only bows down to those who think that might makes right, to those who would unremittingly spread their "faith" by the sword.

Relativists, you see, are effeminate cowards. The Ayatollah Khomeini already knew this back in the day.

The only ones who don't eventually bow down to those who would spread their "faith" by the sword are those who already have a sense of identity based upon truth and natural law, those who know that God is truth and that God is immutable.

I wonder... Is there anyone who can make a guess at the percentage of those in, say, the U.S. of A., who have such a solid sense of identity, grounded precisely in what the American founding fathers called "inalienable rights." What percentage of Americans are, in this way, truly patriotic?

I get the idea from fitna (above), that he is making terroristic threats against his Muslim neighbors here in the U.S.A., that he is already loading up his guns to go and gun down all his racially profiled victims (who will probably just be Chaldean Catholic refugee victims of Sadaam Hussein). This is not the way to go.

Any preemptive war against a religion doesn't solve anything. Might, again, does not make right, even if one is correct in other ways. We have wars going on in Islamic countries, and, meanwhile, the jihad is strengthening right in the U.S.A. and England and elsewhere. We lose if we think that slaughtering people wins hearts and minds. Moreover, no one gives any rights or freedoms to anyone, they have them inalienably. It's only when they realize that that we can help them to be freed from oppressive ideologies.

Overwhelming self-defence is good. But it is a coward who uses the concept of self-defense to go out and shoot his neighbors.

Coercing people into changing their beleifs only gets them to be more entrenched than ever. Keep up the might makes right and you'll see suicide bombers everywhere in the U.S.A.

Instead, non-Muslims must find their true identity, rooted in truth and natural law. When they do, it is this which will bring Islam to an end.

We know how violent Islam can be. What we don't need is to have people foment that violence. Statements like "preemptive warfare against muslims is fully justified and legitimate because it is in self-defense (since they hope to conquer us)" is a terroristic threat. Trying to get people to think that to "confront the threat squarely" means violence right here, right now, apart from any intelligence agencies, etc., is a terroristic threat. This is counterproductive.

Might does not make right.

I think that Islam is inherently violent, and that the Ayatollah Khomeini spoke correctly about Islam. But that does NOT mean that all Muslims know what it is to be Islamic in this way. Nor does it mean that one is to stop thinking and start up the very violence which is their tool in spreading the jihad. Real self-defence is understandable, but not unjustified aggression against one's neighbor.

The only reason to gun down an unarmed neighbor, whatever "hope to conquer" he or she has, is because one has nothing else to offer, no identity, only frustration sick of itself. Try finding a true identity, a true patriotism. Live truth and natural law.

Or does throwing a tantrum just feel better? Tantrums don't make one patriotic, are ignorant of the truth, and ignore natural law.

When you get your head cut off, you'll regret the enjoyment of the tantrum and wish you had used your head another way.

Might does not make right.

"Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!"

Is this a paraphrase of some particular surahs or hadiths?
If so, can anyone give me the particular surahs or hadiths from which he is paraphrasing?

Perpetua, the reference may be to the poll tax. If a family does not convert, a tax is to be paid for each member of the family. If that cannot be paid, then the faith is spread by the sword.

Well, I agree with that statement. But when it comes to defending right then might comes in pretty handy indeed.

Agreed. For example, what if there were a widespread belief system intent on world domination through inculcation, prerogative, intimidation, murder, terror, and the acquisition of WMD?

*** 8:12 ***

When I see some hippie with a peace sign on his car I think, "This guy's a pussy. That symbol stands for surrender in the face of aggressors. The symbol stands for a chicken track made while feeling."

Barquest: Not to worry. It's irony.

Defending is reasonable, not merely might, and so is right.

News flash: you agree with the natural law. You promote defense against agression. This is exactly right. Unjust aggressors are just sand pirates. I'm hoping that "fitna" above is not just another sand pirate, but would join in true self defense as you yourself have described it. I don't think he knows what an anti-jihadist is, that is, someone who first of all has an identity.

Note well: If we are merely in reaction, merely anti-jihadist, we are already puppets of Islam. We have to rise above Islam, which is only possible with an identity apart from Islam. A part of that identity is not having any fear of providing one's country with overwhelming self-defence against unjust agression. But another part is coming to know more profoundly than Islam what it means to be a human being in the first place.

Such hate filled rhetoric! Khomeini must be a greasy Islamophobe. Where is Honest Ibe Hooper when we need him?

Alarmed pig farmer. I'd like to have BLT, please.

I used to live near woodstock in New York, about thirty miles away, across the river. You could still hear the bands from that distance. It made me sick.

The thing is that the military itself, with a fading identity, is likely to go the pussy route more and more, so that it will be blinded to the reality of the violence of Islam, and avoid "profiling" soldiers/sailors/pilots concerning the possibility of fundamentalists turning on their fellows.

Identity is not a pussy thing. It's about being a patriot, knowing why one is a patriot. Only then can concerted overwhelming self-defense be provided. Otherwise, like France, we would just cave in.

I'm just trying to reclaim true American patriotism. I hate it when reactionaries, merely and vacuously in reaction to Islam, think that reaction to Islam is the definition of being an American Patriot. Such pussies, as you call them, would run as fast as they could when the going got tough, because they have nothing, repeat, nothing, inside them. THey just need to be smacked down like any other pussy peacenik.

Let's be true American Patriots.

The above post to ebonystone should have been addressed to 'generic'...

From post above...Might does not make right...

I don't know about that, it always works for me...

duh-swami, the jihadist of might makes right.

duh-swami:

So, superficial materialism backed into a corner, in mere reaction, will conquer a powerfully self-congratulatory religion like Islam?

You've got to be kidding.

Check out Europe.

I mean, wow. Way to dumb down America and empower Islam.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

"Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

There it is, from the Barbarian's mouth.

Spirit Of 1683: Don't forget 7 October 1571.

I'm all for the Lepanto experience.

"I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Spoken like a true mohammedan ...

Kim... What's the deal? Lepanto saw the aggressors, the Islamic fundamentalists, crushed. Do you have a problem with strong self-defense like so many other here?

----

Fitna and his followers: I regret that you think I am a Muslim.

Perhaps I'm the next on your list of people you think are waging Jihad. Tsk. Tsk.

Let me try again, to be clear: Self defense is good. If there is any Islamic fundamentalist aggression in the offing, it is to be crushed outright: overwhelming self-defense. But you don't seem to think I am saying that. Why?

When you say that ALL Muslims should be deported or killed, i.e., ethnic cleansing, and in the way you described it, i.e., apart from government agencies, it seems to me that you should be detained by homeland security. But I suppose you'll just take up arms against America, won't you? Like I say, it seems like you're just another Muslim trying to make patriotic Americans look bad. Why should I think differently?

The reason why people go off the walls, abandoning reason, is because they have lost their sense of identity. They don't know truth or natural law. When people lose their identity, they have nothing to defend except their emotions, which is nothing. This means that for all their wild exclamations about deporation and killing, they will have no motivation, and only put thier heads down like a camel in a sandstorm, and be buried by the sand. Our military is doing a great job, and they are heros. But their goodness would be stained by the lowering of the human spirit that you want.

quranwatcher

What you are describing is the tactics of failure. Only playing defence doesn't work well in the real world because your enemy only has to win once. You have to win every time if you are unwilling to carry the fight to his homeland, or to exact a harsh penalty on him for the attempt. They can replace men and equipment and in regards to Israel have done so several times.

Winning hearts and minds has never worked. Mass bombings and invasions won the hearts and minds of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Chamberlain tried to win old Adolf's heart and managed to play the clown while Hitler took more and more.

Might does make right... ask the American indians about that!

Hi Kim, lets not waste our time with a mohammedan LIAR. Yeah good riddance to bad rubbish!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be gone, troll -- and wad up the koran and flush it as well. Hey then we can call you quranwadder, lol ...

Quote of the day ...

"quranwatcher" is a LIAR!

"O Prophet! Strive against the Disbelievers and the Infidels! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end." - Koran 9:73

"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war (for example, political, economic, propaganda, population explosion). If they convert to Islam and pray and contribute to the cause of Islam (Jihad), let them go." (Koran 9:5)

"Non-Muslims MUST convert to Islam or they will be killed." (Koran 48:16)

"Fight the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and extort money from them." (Koran 9:29)

"Mohammed, the messenger of Allah, and those who follow him (Muslims) are merciful to one another but harsh to the infidels (non-Muslims)." (Koran 48:29)

GET OUT OF OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COUNTRY islamic BARBARIANS.

Robert,
There is a quote floating around on the internet, attributed to Khomeini, in which he talks about what kind of sex Islamic law permits with infants. Do you know if the quote is really from Khomeini?

sharrukin,

Proper self-defense may well involve winning every time, carrying the fight to his homeland, and exacting a harsh penalty on him for any attempt of aggression. I always thought that. We have a great military.

Also, I have not said that winning hearts and minds is the only way to go. Some may accept reason, some may not, but that doesn't have any relevance to the self-defense measures you have described, which I agree with, and which our military is carrying out as we speak.

What I want is for Americans to learn why America is so great. Few seem to know. That is a great pity. So many here want to define themselves as reactionaries against Islam. We carry out the proper self defense as you've described, but we do this all the better when we know our founding documents, when we know the truth as immutable and natural law, when we know why rights are inalienable and cannot be given, but only lived. "By the people, for the people, we the people"... all that.

Self-defense often involves facilitating people to enjoy thier God given rights. We should never be so arrogant, as some think, as to take God's place and give people rights the inalienably already have from God.

If we don't have the intellectual greatness to see that, we have fallen as a nation. I would like to stop that fall and look to the heights, not defined by Islam (even in reaction), but moving far beyond that. Also STRONG self-defense as described above, but so much more.

Kim, great quotes, but you might want to get a more accurate translation of the Qur'an so as to be even more effective.

The Tafsir for these verses is also loaded with what I call incriminating evidence.

Thanks for pointing those verses out to us!

quranwatcher

I agree we need to decide who we are, what it is we are fighting for as we seem confused and scattered in the face of an enemy that shouldn't be a threat.

I am unsure if you really understand that war is an ugly thing. There are no wars without tears and the innocent will suffer as they do in every conflict. Trying to fight wars gently will simply transfer the suffering to our own innocents.

I have some knowledge of history and can tell you that reasoning with Muslims works very well... up until the point when they have power. Then the reasonable folks seem to fade into the background.

Ask yourself a question. How have non-Muslims fared in majority Muslim states? Look at the 1,400 hundred year history of Islam and the many Muslim states in the modern world.

Where are the well treated minorities? The Armenians of Turkey? The Jews of Morocco? The Copts of Egypt? The Christians of Sudan?

What happened to them? Where did Persian Masdaism go? What happened to the Hindu's of Pakistan? What is happening to the Serbs of Kosovo?

The answer to that question is what will happen when Muslims gain power in the west. Many here know that and mercy to those do these things, or go along with them, as most Muslims do, is the action of a fool.

sharrukin,

I couldn't agree more. Overwhelming defense is to be, how to say it more clearly? -- simply overwhelming. Overwhelming is overwhelming however you go about it. But sometimes there can be a too overwhelming, such as nuking a few hundred million people to get say, one political prize prisoner. Right?

You leave out many countries where what you describe about Islamic takeover has taken place, but I get the point. I’ve been telling this to people forever it seems. They wait until they are a majority and then, the glimmer of a knife is to be seen in your peripheral vision. Again and again and again and again. I have so many friends who have been in those situations. It's all from hell. One spoke of the genocide in his own country. He was able to get PTS counseling for himself and for what was left of his village (which did them much good). I remember being really upset at how nobody was stopping the onslaught of the Muslims with overwhelming defense.

Perhaps a story or two of why I spend some of life battling Islam is in order: Many years ago, I dissuaded an Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber with sheer goodness and the joy to be alive. Given the dense crowds in the city, I think I might have done something there. But there was only mixed success. He was confused about everything he thought he knew in life. I think I could have done much for him, but, I entered his life too late for that. I surmise that he was afraid of his (rather incompetent) handlers after deciding not to do what he had been set to do: he committed suicide within minutes, in a way that could not have possibly hurt anyone else. Many years before that, I spoke with another suicide bomber to be. I didn't know that at the time either. In this case he went on to kill and maim so many. Perhaps I should have figured out he was edging in this direction from the conversation we had. He had family in the U.S.A., as did all his friends. He wanted to go as well, but there was something holding him back, like a steel blade against his neck. I should have asked what the problem was. A failure on my part. No success. Both these incidents had an effect on me.

For instance, amidst all the battling over ideas and policy along the years, sometimes at the highest levels -- which is continuing -- I have become convinced that I have done absolutely nothing, inasmuch as I am still alive while so many good men, women and children have died under the most horrific circumstances of Islamic oppression. But I’d like to do what I can: write a little commentary on bits and pieces of the Qur'an which plumb the depths of why Islam is essentially violent, and not a religion at all. I've never seen anyone write what, please God, I'm going to write, reasonably going to the heart, the essence of Islam, and calmly destroying it from within. I think it has to be done, and I think I have the wherewithal to do it.

I came to Jihad Watch today to see what was happening on this corner of the internet, and I’m glad I did. It gives me a taste of where a possible audience is at on so many levels. I thank everyone for that.

Every possible reason is given for Jihadi attacks, the attack by the Times Square Bomber, EXCEPT what he himself says.

He was oppressed, he wouldnt have done it if he had a job, Give him a job, make him president of something, what does it matter if there are 100 other better qualified but unemployed people, he is a muslim after all.

""I really hope that the hearts of the muslims will be pleased with this attack"...

"Islam is coming to the world Inshallah. Islam will spread on the whole world and democracy will be defeated...all the isms and schisms will be defeated and the world of Allah will be supreme and muslims are going to do that"

WAS THE WESTERN INVENTION "EXTREMISTS' MENTIONED HERE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10634960

If you want to know what Jihad means listen to the Times Square bomber explain it from the Quran

The complete video from Al-Arabiya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwOiXxTOxrA

quranwatcher, you said... I've never seen anyone write what, please God, I'm going to write, reasonably going to the heart, the essence of Islam, and calmly destroying it from within.

"You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into."

Talking to Muslims about Islam is largely a waste of time. If your audience is a liberal, or PC Conservative one then some of them may listen.

We need to respect the Muslims more, and take what they say about themselves seriously. They have been around for 1,400 years and in that time I imagine that someone has on occasion pointed out the obvious. Islam is shielded by an invincible ignorance that reason cannot penetrate. It hasn't worked throughout history, nor will it work now.

What has worked was the Spanish reconquest, the Inquisition, the Crusaders, and Jan Sobieski's Hussars before the walls of Vienna. That is what we know DOES NOT work, and what we know DOES work. Islam has been rolled back by force and nothing else.

Other religions have been displaced by new ideas, or theologies, not Islam. What Islam takes, Islam keeps, unless you are willing to start stacking corpses. This is a strength of Islam and it is why we may very well lose this war.

sharrukin,

Slow down, before you yourself bow down to Mecca.

You give more credit to Islam than it deserves.

I fully intend to take the Qur'an at its word.

But I have no respect for any secret power of Islam as a religion, for I do not think it is a religion. I don't think Allah is God. I don't think it has a personal grip on people. It's only what Muslims personally make of it themselves. Nothing more. It has no esoteric control of humanity over the centuries. It is just a convenient thuggery that people buy into it for its self-congratulatory "benefits".

I also think Muslims are fully human beings, not some sort of inferior sub-species. They have just as much moral aptitude as anyone else on the face of the earth. Anyone who thinks differently is just another self-affirming know nothing who is giving himself a license to kill for the sake of killing, like some Islamic jihadist, no? I mean, sure, cultural circumstances, education, family, and so on, all influence or mitigate any Muslim's calm use of reason (as is true for everyone else). But eventually, the truth will sink in here and there. We have to have hope.

If others also saw in the past what I have come to know about the Qur'an in relation to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and spoke about it, they might have been killed off before they could write something about it, if they even had the possibility to write about it in their countries across the centuries. But I don't think they were imprudent to speak out about what they saw, even if they knew for certain that they would die. It's something that just has to be said, with hope.

You see, we are human beings. There has to be (1) words of explanation accompanied with (2) the wherewithal to literally stick one's neck out for what one is saying. This can have a profound effect on even the one doing the killing, maybe not right away, but down the line. And with that conversion to sanity, you get more, and more and more.

Again, this doesn't preempt good self-defense. Personally, I don't have the health to offer that praiseworthy service of self-sacrifice. But I'll try to do what I can in my own way.

It does a disservice to mankind to stomp on this kind of in your face, true to life "dialogue" (though I hate that word). I mean, tell me, mere violence has accomplished what? A bit of a reprieve here and there, for some? Not much more? I see. How about economic threats or kindness? Not much there either? I see. Why not go for the jugular in religion and see what comes of it. Or are you afraid to go there. Or paid to dissuade people from going there? Why not be open to see where something like this could go?

quranwatcher said...

Slow down, before you yourself bow down to Mecca.

You give more credit to Islam than it deserves.

Respecting your enemy does not mean becoming him. It is essential for victory. Many thought the pre-war Japanese were a joke until Pearl Harbor. After that they started taking them a little more seriously.

I also think Muslims are fully human beings, not some sort of inferior sub-species. They have just as much moral aptitude as anyone else on the face of the earth.

I can agree with you about this because I imagine that I have a darker view of human nature than you do.

I mean, sure, cultural circumstances, education, family, and so on, all influence or mitigate any Muslim's calm use of reason (as is true for everyone else). But eventually, the truth will sink in here and there. We have to have hope.

That hope may be in vain. 1,400 years of history would suggest that it is, but who knows? Maybe we are so special, so clever and amazing that we will find the answer that has eluded so many over the centuries. Humility would council that simply isn't the case.

You see, we are human beings. There has to be (1) words of explanation accompanied with (2) the wherewithal to literally stick one's neck out for what one is saying. This can have a profound effect on even the one doing the killing, maybe not right away, but down the line. And with that conversion to sanity, you get more, and more and more.

The Jews thought that as well. That Hitler fellow can be reasoned with. There is true evil in the world and in each of us, and you do not seem to be able to truly accept that.

You speak of rationality and reason and yet what do you have to offer the Muslim male? Good. Bad. He's the guy with the gun! The west is vanishing through lack of children so what future do you have to offer in that regard? He lives in a culture where he is secure in knowing his place and privileges, and to replace that you offer the insecure, effeminate western male. Why would he accept such a deal?

Western culture is in freefall and we cannot muster the will to fight an enemy as weak as Islam and the Muslim as a rational actor, would see this as something to emulate, why exactly?

I mean, tell me, mere violence has accomplished what? A bit of a reprieve here and there, for some? Not much more?

Mere violence drove the Indians from the shores of the new world and saw their replacement by English settlers. Mere violence saw the foundation of a Republic formed from those 13 colonies. Mere violence drove the Britons from their homeland and the Anglo-Saxon tribes created a nation called England. Mere violence swept out of the Arabian deserts and in a few decades conquered the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in the name of Allah and his pedophile prophet. Mere violence is now terrorizing the nations of Europe to shun Israel, curb their own behavior and grovel to Muslim paymasters.

Violence has a long history of accomplishing a great deal throughout history. We in the West have turned away from it in favor of moral navel gazing that would embarrass a medieval priest. The Muslims embrace it and despite the power of the West and the weakness of the Muslims states, they are advancing and we are retreating. It looks like a winning strategy to me.

We are entirely too frightened that our moral purity might be stained if we actually fought back.

I have filed this thread in a file I call 'the religion of blood and war'.

That is how Winston Churchill defined Islam.

From 'The Theatre of War', the introductory chapter to his 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force':

"That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the

sword--the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives

to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds

of men--stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism....

"...the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance.

It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have

been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of

material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside.

The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations

are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis--as dangerous

and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such.

While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy

of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive

additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder

and the joy of fighting.

Thus whole nations are roused to arms.

Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British

squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide.
In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism.
The forces of progress clash with those of reaction.

The religion of blood and war {i.e. Islam -dda} is face to face with that of peace {i.e. Christianity, or more broadly, the society that Christianity made possible - dda}.

Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed".

And from the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, p. 204 of the A Guillaume translation - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’ ‘Yes. **In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind** {my emphasis - dda}.’”

Jacques Ellul agrees with Churchill's assessment -

"...a major, twofold fact transforms the jihad into something quite different from traditional wars, waged for ambition and self-interest, with limited objectives, where the "normal" situation is peace between peoples - war, in itself, constituting a dramatic event which must end in a return to peace.

"This twofold fact is, first, the religious nature [of the jihad]; then, secondly, the fact that war has become an institution (and no longer an "event")...

"jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfil; it is Islam's normal path to expansion.

"And this is found repeatedly, dozens of times in the Koran.

"Therefore, the believer is not denying the religious message. Quite the reverse, jihad is the way he best obeys it.

"And the facts - which are meticulously recorded and clearly analyzed [by Bat Ye’or] - show that the jihad is not a "spiritual war" but a real military war of conquest. It expresses the agreement between the "founding text" and the believers' practical strivings.

"But Bat Ye'or shows that things are not so simple.

"Since the jihad is not solely an external war, it can break out within the Muslim world itself - and wars among Muslims have been numerous, but always with the same features.

"Hence, the second important specific characteristic is that the jihad is an institution and not an event; that is to say, that it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world...

"...the jihad is an institution in the sense that it participates extensively in the economic life of the Islamic world.

"Like dhimmitude does, which involves a specific conception of this economic life, as the author clearly shows.

"But it is most essential to grasp that the jihad is an institution in itself; that is to say, an organic piece of Muslim society.

"As a religious duty it fits into the religious organization, like pilgrimages and so on.

"However, this is not the essential factor, which derives from the division of the world in the (religious) thought of Islam.

"The world [for Muslims], as Bat Ye'or brilliantly shows, is divided into two regions: the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb - in other words, the "domain of Islam" and "the domain of war".

"The world is no longer divided into nations, peoples, or tribes. Rather, they are all located en bloc in the world of war, where war is the only possible relationship with the outside world. The earth belongs to Allah and all its inhabitants must acknowledge this reality; to achieve this goal there is but one method: war.

"War, then, is clearly an institution, not just an incidental or fortuitous institution, but a constituent part of the thought, the organization and the structures of this world. Peace with this world of war is impossible. Of course it is sometimes necessary to call a halt; there are circumstances where it is better not to make war. The Koran allows for this.

"But this changes nothing: war remains an institution, which means that it must resume as soon as circumstances permit.

"I have greatly stressed the characteristics of this war, because there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, **which is fundamentally warlike** {my emphasis - dda}! " END QUOTE.

sharrukin:

Aside from Mike Godwin's law, the application of which is here unwise IMHO, and aside from the other things I agree with you about, like western society in danger of becoming too soft and self-centered to know anything or do anything about Islam, I must say that mere violence without dialogue (instead of overwhelming self-defense and words of reason) did not get us anywhere except ready for another onslaught. The more you list of these events, the more this should be clear.

Overwhelming self-defense is necessary for as long as it takes, yes, but this will go on uselessly unless something more is added to the equation. Getting nervous and purposely locking out ways to go about this seems lowers everything to their terms. Why? It's about a both/and, nor an either/or.

A good soldier should use everything at his disposal. He needn't park his brain at the recruiting station, or West Point, or Georgetown, or...

John Quincy Adams knew what jihad was all about and where it came from.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F3F5C99B-338A-4BC1-A4B2-585EFE643619

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

He wrote that circa 1829, in one of a series of unsigned essays on the subject of Greece and of the Russo-Turkish war.

He was 100 % correct as to the pretext upon which Muslims make war - the fact that non-Muslims refuse to view Mohammed as a 'prophet'. *That* is the offence. That is the casus belli...and since any sane and decent person is inclined to reject Mohammed, well, Muslims have sure-fire cause for going to war with basically everybody.

I shall now proceed to quote the personal testimony of an Australian citizen, as stated in the comments to an op ed in an Australian newspaper, which chimes exactly with J Q A's analysis. Scene: a sunny street in tropical Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, at the time of Israel's inflicting a well-deserved drubbing on Jihad Fortress Gaza.

"...On Saturday [17th Jan] in Brisbane there was another demonstration in favour of Palestine at which anybody who bothered to go (I live in the city and they marched in my street so I had a front row ground level seat as my fiance and I had come back from a run) would have heard Muslim Australians chanting “kill the jews”.

"I even spoke to one protestor who confirmed he was Muslim and from Iran who said there would only be peace when Israel and the rest of the west was destroyed.

"Now this man was supported by many of his fellow protestors who screamed with him, but for three men in the crowd who shook their heads and at that point left the protest (and apologised to us for the comments of the others). {note well, folks, who were in the majority, and who comprised the tiny minority - dda}.

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

This very telling anecdote was related in The Australian, online, by a poster calling himself 'Jonathan Whybird', in the comments to an op ed by one Carolyn Coverington, on 19 January 2009.

did not get us anywhere except ready for another onslaught. The more you list of these events, the more this should be clear.

Those events listed include the founding of the United States. If you think that this event is meaningless, or a moral negative that did not get us anywhere then we clearly will never come to any agreement.

Violence as a tool, works! It can be a force for good as in the founding of the American Republic or a force for evil, as in the advance of Islam. That it is effective can only be disputed by those who have a serious misunderstanding of human nature and the events of history. This tends to be leftists (religious and secular leftists included) as they take misconceptions of human nature to staggering heights.

You seem to think that if we just understood the Muslims and dialogued them just right they would realize we can all be friends.

The west has NOT acted against Islam at all! We intervened in Kosovo ON THEIR SIDE. We are trying to build a nation and wins hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan. We allow their mosques to be built and their people to flood into the west. We give them cash and weapons. We train their soldiers, build their pipelines, send aid to those suffering from giant tidal waves and pass laws so that no one can call them mean and nasty names.

Since when have we stopped babbling like drunken fools in the last 50 years? You claim there is some sort of dialogue lacking! In what parallel dimension is this true?

Aside from Mike Godwin's law, the application of which is here unwise IMHO...

Godwin's law is nonsense formulated by an idiot IMHO. That aside, Hitler's Germany acts as an easily understood example of how far man, and modern man at that, is willing to go. I could use the Assyrians as an example, the Communists, or the Muslims, but the Assyrians excepted these groups have their defenders in the modern west. Hitler's Germany has few such defenders and get's to the heart of the matter as regards to human nature.

You want to talk to them. You want to somehow convince them that 1,400 years of Muslim conquest and history is just a big mistake and they should just stop being so mean. The staggering arrogance of what you are suggesting takes me aback.

They are not children! They know exactly what they are doing. They are not confused about their intentions. Read what they say and have some basic respect for them. You seem to regard them as a misguided twelve year who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks.

Getting nervous and purposely locking out ways to go about this seems lowers everything to their terms

Lowers everything to their terms?

Here we go again. You essentially ask, ‘Do we want to be just like them’ as if moral purity in a sinful world was all that mattered.

How many of our own are butchered is seen as an obstacle to the talking agenda, not a 'Casus belli'. Survival or victory comes a distant second.

Like medieval priests without a God, too many of our own, speculate endlessly about our sins, real and perceived. We play Hamlet, dithering and questioning if we should act, and what might be thought of us if we do.

'quranwatcher' freely throws about accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. He also makes broad claims about people not knowing who and what they are.

That charge may be true of some, even of many, within the West; and of many in India, too, to judge from the complaints we hear from some of our Indian correspondents.

But the regulars who post here are very deeply aware of who and what we, the West and the Rest, are, and have been, at our best.

I don't know how long quranwatcher has been reading here, but this forum has a lot of practising Christians of all stripes, a lot of practising Jews, quite a few thoughtful Hindus, and a number of cool-headed pagans, atheists and agnostics who are well versed in the paths of Reason and familiar with the laws and institutions of the West, with Rome and Athens; we have scientists *and* artists *and* lawyers *and* historians. It should also not be assumed that everyone here is a US citizen; many are, of course, but many who post and many who read are citizens of other countries, from the UK, from Europe, Australia, Canada, and beyond, each bringing their own perspective. Though the common language in this forum is English, we do not confine our vision to the Anglosphere by any means. And most of us here know damn well what we're fighting for, and why.

Here's a sample statement (and I advise anyone new to this forum, who has not yet read it, to do so; and to read the associated comments thread, which reinforces Hugh's point beautifully).

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/05/fitzgerald-whats-at-stake.html

I would also say that 'quranwatcher', expressing contempt for what he perceives as the 'materialism' of those who duh-swami calls 'mall people', might be getting duh-swami wrong.

I suspect that duh-swami's 'mall people' might just turn out to be rather more like Tolkien's Hobbits than anybody suspects.

"Nonetheless, ease and peace had left this people still curiously tough. They were, if it came to it, difficult to daunt or to kill; and they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well, and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces."

(Lord of the Rings, Prologue, 'Concerning Hobbits').

And again:

"There is a seed of courage hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some final and desperate danger to make it grow".

(Lord of the Rings, Volume I, chapter 8).

Tolkien is talking about what the author of the piece I shall now link, refers to as 'remnant'.

http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2007/05/21/you-are-not-alone-part-1/

From that piece (you will have to scroll well down, to find it)

"...what did the passengers of United Flight 93 have in common? Men and women, gay and straight, liberal and conservative, Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor… who knows, and more importantly, who cares?

"They were motivated to do extraordinary things – not all of them, for most of the people remained in their seats.

"But some of them (enough, as it turned out) heard that ancient and distant call, heard that tone, that frequency – and likely saved the Capitol building, symbol of our government; not to mention all the people in and around it.

"That is Remnant. That is the strength, the foundation, the core, the essence of civilization and decency in the face of barbarism and murder.

"If this sounds like a fun thing to be then I have not been making myself clear."...END QUOTE.

Three symbols of 'America', representing its three core principles, were targeted on September 11 - first the soaring monument to 'the pursuit of happiness' that was the World Trade Center, then the military fortress of the Pentagon, dedicated to the protection and defence of the nation's life, and lastly....either the White House, the residence of the Presidents, or the Capitol, both of them symbols of the Republic, of government of, by and for the people. The last not the first targets, and in some ways the least impressive, the oldest, the untidiest, the least spectacular. And it was that last target, or targets, that was saved.

Either the President and his staff, or a bunch of Congresscritters, were saved,...by, one is forced to assume, the heroic action of some few ordinary people who had discovered, thanks to modern communications tech, what had happened to the other targets..and knew that they were on board a missile, and may well have suspected where the plane was heading. Their last actions on earth were those of free citizens.

If one looks at the events in Mumbai, in Beslan, in Bali in 2002, in London 2005, one sees, in the testimony of the survivors, extraordinary things. Often the very last people who might have been expected to be brave, to help others, to defy evil, were the ones who shone like stars in the darkness. Who could have predicted that Martha Samuel would rescue little Moshe Holzberger? Four Aussie teenagers, just ordinary blokes, fun-loving surfies, mall rats, beach rats, formed a human chain at the back of the burning Sari Club and played pass-the-parcel to get some forty desperate people over a wall that no person could hope to scale alone, to safety. They didn't just rescue each other and bolt, which they could easily have done; they stayed till the fire was breathing down their necks, to get as many others out as they could.

sharrukin:

You say that violence brought about the founding of the United States, wondering if I think that that even is meaningless, or a moral negative that did not get us anywhere, adding that "Violence as a tool, works! It can be a force for good as in the founding of the American Republic." /// What I am balking at is the way some other comboxers went to the extreme of making me out to be a radical jihadist for wanting to be even more patriotic than an agent of mere violence. I think that America is more than just a mere violent reaction to something else. The founding fathers had a declaration of independence and also an awesome constitution, documents that some others here seem to think are a waste of time, since, for them, only violence matters and nothing else, ever. I've been saying I want a better defense than that, that is, with those who are not merely soldiers for the sake of being soldiers, but those who are truly patriots. We have such a patriotic military already. I don't want it dumbed down by those who would think that our constitution is useless in the face of violence, useless to inspire new recruits, useless as a motivation for soldiers/sailors/pilots to give thier best. I spit on those who spit on our constitution, even if they do so in the name of violence. I'm sure you would do the same, since you wisely talk about violence as a tool, which is the one of the best things I've read here. Excellent.

I don't dispute the effectiveness of violence. I dispute that it does more than offer a reprieve (for which reprieves we are all eternally grateful, don't get me wrong). Such reprieves are worth the blood of our generous military personnel who give their lives for this. What I am saying is that violence can only go so far as a solution. Any military anywhere knows that you can't force freedom on anyone. You can't give it to them. They have to come to the conclusion that freedom is what they want to enjoy as an inalienable right. Only then does violence become a viable tool, a useful tool, a laudable tool. I'm sure you agree.

You said: "You seem to think that if we just understood the Muslims and dialogued them just right they would realize we can all be friends." /// No. I'm just saying that giving people an opportunity is not to be put aside. I think that the vast majority of Muslims have no idea what is in the Qur'an, and have no idea why sharia is the way it is. The vast, vast majority of Muslims I've spoken with abroad all loved the United States. Only very few understand their "religion" and put their "religion" into action. Sure, those few may not want to have anything to do with reason, but I am out for the other billion or so who might be open to this. Winning the hearts of the many goes a long, long way in winning wars. This is a MAJOR part of any modern military strategy. I know you agree with your comment about babbling fools.

"You want to talk to them," you say, with "them" meaning those who are actually in the act of slitting someone's throat. For me, "them" includes about a billion others, not just those few. Or do you honestly think that all Muslims know what the Qur'an really says and are all armed to the teeth, always and everywhere, every person? Really? In reality? All billion+ are raving terrorists? The vast majority of Muslims are uneasy about terrorism, but may not know why. I'd like to tell them why. Is that is evil staggeringly arrogant? I don't think so, not if one make the distinction between mad terrorists actively on the prowl and the vast majority who are uneasy about terrorism.

Sure, the terrorist crowd would slit my throat for writing these things, and I know they know what they are doing. But I'm talking about the others, and they are many. I think we would have to agree about that. Or are you saying that efforts to befriend the common man in our ongoing wars is stupid, that our Generals are incompetent? I don't think so. There ar distinctions to be made. It is important. I'm sure you agree.

And yes, I think that moral purity in a sinful world is all that matters, the constitution in the one hand and a gun for defense in the other, wherever that defense brings us. Victory is paramount, but the means to get there are not to simply kill off a billion people. I hope you agree.

dumbledoresarmy:

The idea seemed to be that materialism and violence starkly alone could provide the wherewithal to do something.

I think the Mall people as they are called mistakenly, are instead those who appreciate the constitution, inalienable rights, etc. They are not to be insulted as if they had or could have nothing more that materialism and a gun.

I'm sure most comboxers and readers are awesome. I take offense, however, when it is implied that to hold the constitution up even while holding a gun in the other hand makes me an islamic jihadist. Some have that idea. I think it is unfortunate.

I realize there are other nations reading this blog. I think they also appreciate the American constitution.

Am I really a jihadist for wanting to uphold our constitution even while I hold a gun to defend that constitution. I think many here should be careful not to insult the vast, vast, vast majority of American Military who uphold the constitution and hold a gun in their hands.

Why can't we be COMPLETE patriots? Or are we to be defined, again, merely in reaction to Islam?

What I am balking at is the way some other comboxers went to the extreme of making me out to be a radical jihadist for wanting to be even more patriotic than an agent of mere violence. I think that America is more than just a mere violent reaction to something else.

What they, and I see, is someone who wants to talk at the expense of acting. The constitution doesn't mean a thing unless it is backed up by what you call 'mere violence'. It was brought into exist by 'mere violence' and the liberties that it grants were kept safe by 'mere violence'.

Dialogue and talking didn't work with the British. If you had been in charge then, would there have been a resort 'to the God of hosts', or 'mere violence' as you call it? More likely you could have found some reasonable British folks to talk with and try to hash it out.

Chamberlain wasn't a Nazi sympathizer, he just wanted to embrace the western values of co-operation and mutual understanding rather than be an agent of 'mere violence'. Churchill was the 'mere violence' guy!

Or do you honestly think that all Muslims know what the Qur'an really says and are all armed to the teeth, always and everywhere, every person? Really? In reality? All billion+ are raving terrorists? The vast majority of Muslims are uneasy about terrorism, but may not know why.

Do you honestly think that all German's know what Mein Kampf really says and are all armed to the teeth, always and everywhere, every person? Really? In reality? All of them are raving fanatics? The vast majority of Germans are uneasy about Hitler, but may not know why.

Has there ever been a time when human beings have acted like robotic killer ants? No! That doesn't change the reality and the fact that you think this is a relevant point to make suggests you will never act.

Or are you saying that efforts to befriend the common man in our ongoing wars is stupid, that our Generals are incompetent? I don't think so.

That is precisely what I think! As you stated earlier Any military anywhere knows that you can't force freedom on anyone. You can't give it to them. This seems to be something they don't know, nor it seems do you. You pretend that you know this and then go on to suggest that dialogue and talking can bring about a realization on their part that They have to come to the conclusion that freedom is what they want to enjoy as an inalienable right. That isn't going to happen! It hasn't happened for 1,400 years and I don't think you have the magical formula to make it happen.

The vast, vast majority of Muslims I've spoken with abroad all loved the United States.

Sorry but that is just delusional. The vast majority of Europeans, Asians, or Latin Americans do not love the United States and it is simply not credible that Muslims do.

Only very few understand their "religion" and put their "religion" into action. Sure, those few may not want to have anything to do with reason, but I am out for the other billion or so who might be open to this. Winning the hearts of the many goes a long, long way in winning wars.

Again, a heaping dose of contempt for those ignorant Muslims. They are so backward and stupid that they cannot possibly know what they are doing. If we can only shine the light of western civilization in their lives they will realize the error of their ways. Inside every Muslim is an American struggling to get out?

This is a MAJOR part of any modern military strategy. I know you agree with your comment about babbling fools.

The modern strategy that has a disturbing tendency to lose wars? That one? Did we win the hearts and minds of the North Koreans? The Vietnamese? The Iranians? The Somali's The Germans? When has that nonsense ever worked?

We marched against Germany and rebuilt their economy after the war because it served our purpose to do so. We needed an economically viable Germany in Europe, and later a German army to help with the Soviet menace. They took those offers for the same cold-hearted reason the French did. It was in their interest to do so.

The comment about babbling fools was in direct reference to the Israeli's who think they can make peace with a people who do not want peace! It was in reference to the Europeans who think they can make deals with Muslim groups within Europe and expect they will be respected and adhered to. It was in refernce to Americans who think that pandering to Muslim interests will somehow earn their forbearance.

Babbling fools.

Not everyone out there is a friend we just haven't met!

@sharrukin

I'll stick with the ways of Stan McChrystal and, now, Dave Petraeus.

But really, you should tell homeland security that you're off to your little private militia.

But, if you're actually military, you're diggin' yourself in pretty deep.

quranwatcher

You are engaging in what is called magical thinking. You don't want to face the reality of what is actually happening so you keep repeating what has failed time and time again.

I pointed this out and to you that means what? I must be a member of some rabid militia? Again magical thinking. You don't want to hear it, so the person saying these things must be a bad man.

Why don't you tell me what this secret you have discovered about Islam that will shatter the faith of those Muslims who hear it? You remember? Get to the essence of what is Islam and calmly destroy it from within!

It sounds like more magical thinking, the sort you see in Hollywood all the time. The enemy is defeated by putting a computer virus in his starship, or by dropping a proton torpedo down the thermal exhaust port.

Real life doesn't work that way. Real life requires planning the invasion of Normandy and accepting the losses you know will happen. Nice if some commando's could have parachuted in and killed Hitler and put an end to it all, or (your solution) some wise man could have given a rousing speech and all those fascists would just see how mean they were being.

Time to grow up, I think!

"I'll stick with the ways of Stan McChrystal and, now, Dave Petraeus." - posted above

They know nothing about Islam. They are getting our young men and women killed by the Islamic Barbarians.

Yeah, grow up, qw, as sharrukin said.

People - Tell homeland security about qw.

So, sharrukin...

I mean, like, and I'm being totally respectful here, man... were you, like, wounded or something in Khorsabad, I mean with your name and all? or is that just an historical/fictive name?

Be honest with me here.

I'm not using that question to dis your arguments. It's just that I've noticed you seem to think that nobody can know what the blood and guts of war is about but you.

I mean, mabey some of your buds took a bullet for you. I don't know.

That's just classic PTS: suffering being a gnostic-like experience and all that.

You can deny it vehemently in this forum all you want and call me a dreamer and whatever. But I've seen this before. It reminds me of a friend I got to talk through his genocide experience. His whole family was hacked down, and all the villages around him. He almost got his throat slit three times. It ain't easy.

Sorry, man. Sorry.

sharrukin - pay no attention to jerk qw. Jerk! Pathetic qw.

quranwatcher

Way off base on every score.

The term Sharrukin has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Sargon the Great of Akkad was around more than 2,500 years before Islam had even been heard of.

I am hardly alone in understanding that war is hell. Ever heard that phrase?

Most people on this forum know that facing unpleasant truths can be, well... unpleasant.

You don't know that, or refuse to see it.

@sharrukin

I remember being in a certain place in early-eighties North-East Nicaragua, noticing a few things. When a friend found out where I had been, he proceeded to tell me his own experience of looking at what I had seen. He was on a special forces op, under orders, but illegally there according to international law at the time, and therefore, off the usual intelligence radar. He said that his chopper was hit by a missile off what must have been a Strela 2. It went down from just above the tree tops. No one was killed. Before they could do anything all but himself were decapitated. He was knocked cold, so that when he woke up, he could tell the story. Telling that story did him good. What’s your hell?

quranwatcher

I once had an undercooked hamburg that I paid for over the next couple of days. Embarrassing as heck! Does that count?

Sorry, trying to minimize what someone says by reducing it to a personal experience on their part doesn't cut it.

You do the same thing with Muslims. They are the product of their culture and are ignorant of the truth about Islam. A truth that you possess. I suspect they know a great deal more about Islam than you could possibly imagine.

You see only what you wish to see and when events, or individuals bring something to your attention that you don't like you interpret it away as being the product of some pathology.

The one who says that all Muslims are terrorists is on the edge of being a sociopath. Just trying to let you know.

The one who says that all Muslims are terrorists is on the edge of being a sociopath. Just trying to let you know.

He obviously believes the global jihad, that has been planned and funded with the Middle Eastern oil boon (instead of building up their society for their common people), is preparing to unveil their political Mahdi to (loosely, as they really are anarchists at heart) unite Muslim groups all over the globe. We'll see if it is Obama (or his brother). There is an Islamic prophesy about the Mahdi being killed by "unbelievers" and raised from the dead, so it could also be Saddam Hussein (and we killed his relative double).

Kudos.

This is exactly what happens when one lets oneself be defined by reaction to Islam. One takes Islam at its word so seriously that one becomes a believer, so much so that one will think that Saddam has risen from the dead, just because they say so. There is no magical grip on a billion people. To think so means that one bows down to the rock in Mecca.

Having said that, there are certainly many international groups of terrorists all over the place.

Spencer does a good job in bringing all this to everyones attention, letting people know how intense the terrorists are. This is an invaluable contribution.

So many of the comboxers here are awesome.

quranwatcher, what is a comboxer?

Susanp

quranwatcher, what is a comboxer?

I assumed he meant a commentator. Cannot find it in any dictionaries, but I did find this commentator answering a similar question to yours.

I'll take a shot at a definition though it is not vetted by even the Wiktionary. A comboxer is someone who comments on a blog. Perhaps the etymology is "comments box writer" or someone who writes comments in the box provided, as I am currently doing.

It seems to show up on several Catholic sites. Maybe it's British or something?

Or maybe it's English...

Anyway, anyone anywhere anytime can become a terrorist, like Timothy McVeigh (who wasn't even a Muslim. Fancy that). A little town I lived in (of about a 1000 people) had three full anti-government militias on the one hand, and an overabundance of FBI agents on the other.

Anyone who would say that such is impossible is just giving themselves a license to be a terrorist.

Do I think that imams preaching up terrorism in the USA should be extremely severely punished? Yes.

DO I think that imams preaching up terrorism in the USA is a rare event? Not at all.

Do I think that those listening to such imams are much more likely to become terrorists than others? I do.

Do I think that Islam is a religion which is given over to encouraging terrorism? Absolutely, from beginning to end. That is it's very essence.

Do I spit on those who say that Islam is peaceful? Sure.

Do I think that all Muslims should be deported or shot, as some "comboxers" have opined? Not at all.

Why do I think that the minds of some Muslims could be changed, utterly? Because if one knows one's audience, one knows how to write for that audience.

But one must not give superstitious power to a "religion". That is a capitulation so powerful that even if one grabs for one's gun, one will drop that gun in fear of one's own superstition. This is not a time to cower in a supersition that only temporarily makes one into a "brave" anarchist (only to crumble later).

Instead, it is a time to do what past generations could not do because of limitations in communication. Some people here think that modern means of communication existed for the past 1400 years, and think that it is arrogant to use what we have today. Such people, fed by their own nervousness in the face of Islam, think that anyone who shows up their superstitious respect of Islam are radical jihadists. That's what superstition does to a person.

So, Susanp, being a woman, where would you start with Islam? Having answered that, don't you agree that thinking laterally is pretty cool?

Hello Champ.

Breathe deeply...

Ready?

Let's read together.

"preemptive warfare against muslims is fully justified and legitimate because it is in self-defense (since they hope to conquer us). Of course I won't hold my breath for our "intelligence agencies," MSM and intellectual/political elites to suddenly wake up out of their self-induced stupor and delusional thinking and fight the jihad in earnest, but at least the facts are there for anyone willing to look at them honestly and confront the threat squarely" (fitna).

In summary:

(1) Preemptive warfare against muslims
(2) Private action (no intelligence agencies)
(3) By anyone who is "honest"
(4) Confronting the threat squarely

Let's read more together, shall we?

"I believe muslims should be deported and Islam banned in order to protect our culture from destruction (ie-Islamification). However any muslims who choose to actively wage jihad/war need to be eliminated, just as we did with the Nazis" (fitna, again).

In summary:

(1) Deported

. . . or

(2) Eliminated

Perhaps "shot" is a bit strong for you? Should I use "carpet-bombed" like in Dresden, in reference to the Nazi thing? Oh, I guess that would include the lesser, shooting bit, wouldn't it.

So, there we are: deported or shot. Sound familiar?

Look, Champ. Trash the electronic games. And don't waste your life in useless reaction. You are so ready to foam at the mouth that you don't even know what or who you are against. Forget the friendly fire rubbish. Know your real enemy right now. Try yourself. Really. Calm down. You want a way out? Try learning the truth and natural law. That will make you more determined, but with an intelligent edge. Really. It works.

But maybe a couple of you guys here are really jihadists purposely out to give decent folk a bad name. Typical. But it doesn't work. Islam will not be conquered by foamers at the mouth. Really. We need people who think and act intelligently. As I've been saying (for American readers): Let's have the Constitution in one hand and, in the other, a gun for overwhelming, intelligent self-defense.

BTW, I only mention the jihadist thing since a couple of you guys remind me of trolls on a blog of mine which I once used to hunt down jihadists. Eventually they would reveal themselves. I got so good at it that, at one point, המוסד‎, or should I say, for you, الموساد‎, intervened, not that I needed their advice, but I thought that was pretty cool of them. Solidarity.

Also, for those who are so rabidly against me writing about anything regarding Islam, as if nothing written could ever bring about social change [!], let's remember Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which, although condemned by the Malcolm X, was the single most important tool to bring about the end of slavery in the United States. That's huge. Why? Because truth and the natural law naturally have resonace in the human person who is not stuck on himself. But, who am I dealing with here, Malcolm Xers?

quranwatcher

This...

"Do I think that all Muslims should be deported or shot, as some "comboxers" have opined?"

is not this...

"preemptive warfare against muslims is fully justified and legitimate because it is in self-defense (since they hope to conquer us). Of course I won't hold my breath for our "intelligence agencies," MSM and intellectual/political elites to suddenly wake up out of their self-induced stupor and delusional thinking and fight the jihad in earnest, but at least the facts are there for anyone willing to look at them honestly and confront the threat squarely" (fitna).

In war people get shot and 'preemptive warfare' is what Fitna is talking about. The Israeli attack in 1967 was a preemptive war and yet somehow they avoided killing all Muslims. Strange isn't it how the real world works?

How his reference to the media, professors and intelligence agencies not being up to the job translates in your mind to shooting all Muslims is something know only to you!

Hello Champ.

It's this thread.

Best.

sharrukin:

Read warfare with private. That's huge.

(1) Preemptive warfare against muslims
(2) Private action (no intelligence agencies)
(3) By anyone who is "honest"
(4) Confronting the threat squarely

Then, read

(1) Deported
and
(2) Eliminated

You might join Champ in learning to read.

BTW: The 1967 war, etc., were not individuals doing their thing. I'm not quite sure why you want to align yourself to fitna. Don't think it is the creator of the film who uses the name fitna. He's much, much more intelligent than that.

quranwatcher

You might join Champ in learning to read.

What you call reading is what most others call reading into.

The NAACP does the same thing when they see stellar 'Black Holes' as somehow a reference to black women.

Where exactly does Fitna suggest vigilante action?

I have to agree with Champ. You are flat out dishonest!

champ

He may be a Muslim, or just a loony leftist. It is hard to tell the difference between those two groups as they tend to the same solutions and conclusions.

If I had to make a guess I would say that he is a 'social justice' Christian which is just a leftist dressing up his left-wing politics in religious cloth.

champ

In my experience, lefties don't start out one way, and then present a totally different side the next. They are usually consistently 'left' from the get-go; whereas in the beginning mohammedans might come across like they are AGAINST islam, etc, but then the truth leaks out and they begin to reveal a totally DIFFERENT side -- as is clearly the case with qw.

Well you have the advantage on me as this is my first run in with him. Cannot say that I am impressed.

I take it that he presented himself as being against the spread of Islam and quickly drifted towards the 'lets not do anything to actually stop them' attitude?

You may very well be right!

jizya:

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson. I agree. Every imam that issues a fatwa condemning someone to death should be hunted down like a dog and shot. It is time for them to fear US.

Just who should to the hunting and shooting?

The struggle against forced submission to Sharia law in the U.S. has not yet turned into shootouts in the streets and vigilante murders. If major cities are taken out with EMP's (or worse), and our Military/National Guard have been picked off in global jihadist distractions/skirmishes, the police departments may recruit volunteers and we may have to physically defend ourselves. The best action at this point is becoming active in organizations like Act for America (actforamerica.org), Veteran Defenders (www.veterandefenders.org), www.congress.org (writing Represenatives), American Center for Law & Justice(www.aclj.org), etc., etc., and to educate ourselves at Jihad Watch and www.michaelyon-online.com, http://www.fbi.gov/inside/inside.htm, www.thebulletin.org, etc., etc., and to have a plan in case of terrorist attacks.

@Mary

Perfect

To those who think all Muslims are the same, check out Mr Spencer's perspective. If you want to argue the point, perhaps you should set up a debate with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gGHHUowk-0

I would like to invite him to our university for a debate. Perhaps this would be a good point to discuss. Maybe you you would like to go against him?

LET US UNITE AGAINST THIS TERRORISM

Many Muslims say today that Islam means peace but they add that if we disagree then there is some punishment. We, the lovers of humanity must now understand that Muslims are never humans => They cannot be.

Quran 98:6
Translated by Marmaduke Pickthall

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

Muslims treat all NON Muslims as the worst. They like themselves to be treated otherwise. We are fools if we don't show Muslim the Golden rule of ethics. I request all to unite and destroy the evil sect of Mohammedanism. Treat Muslims as if they are worst. However, if Muslims want to improve and convert to some other religion, they must be given free chance to do so. Where Muslims are in minority, we must do so there.

This is recommended for the sake of humanity.

Let me know what do you say?