Maryland: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

If Muslims really wants to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. They can:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of "Islamophobia"!

And Pamela Geller said it best: "Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don't have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I."

Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland. I wonder if he attended this forum -- the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city.

"Panel discusses cause and effect of Islamophobia in the U.S.," by Melissa Quijada in the DiamondbackOnline, September 23 (thanks to Tipster):

Scattered views filled a forum yesterday as students and activists addressed the fear of Islam and Muslims that's recently resurfaced in the media, agreeing the term Islamophobia should be discussed emphasizing similarities, not differences.

Last night at the Nyumburu Cultural Center, the Black Male Initiative student group hosted a discussion of about 100 students and activists to address social tensions amid a recent surge of anti-Islamic sentiments. Supported by the Muslim Students' Association and the Muslim Women of Maryland members, the event challenged the word and filled seats.

"It's important for us as engaged citizens and human beings to speak out against these injustices when they rear their ugly heads," said Solomon Comissiong, Nyumburu Cultural Center's assistant director of student involvement and public relations, as he opened the panel.

And when discussing an issue that often creates deep divides, panelists emphasized the importance of unity in tackling such a phenomenon.

"The existence of 'Islamophobia' is a social failure," said Secretary of the Muslim Students' Association Osama Eshera. "This is an issue we all have to deal with together."

Panelists paid specific attention to a string of anti-Islamic events, many of which have recently made national headlines, that led to the discussion held last night.

Dave Zirin, a sports writer and socialist activist who co-monitored the event with Comissiong, referenced the New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat, face and arm after disclosing his Muslim faith. Comissiong cited the national unrest earlier this month when Florida pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Qur'an in protest of efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Of course, the New York cabbie stabber worked for a pro-Ground Zero mosque group, so it is hard to pin his actions on "Islamophobia." And it's outstanding moral myopia to tut-tut at the Qur'an-burning but not at the Muslims who murdered innocents because of it.

"We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash," Comissiong said.

Much of the first half of conversation pointed to the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 as the root of fear and hatred of Islam.

"There's a notion that Muslims rejoiced while Americans suffered," said Eshera, a junior bioengineering major. "The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

Preposterous. A tenth of the people killed in the Trade Towers were Muslims? A ridiculous lie, but clearly one that Islamic supremacists have agreed upon, as it is oft-repeated lately.

A long line of both students and seasoned social activists stepped forward to ask questions and make comments, causing the event to run longer than expected. Some fundamentally challenged the term Islamophobia and the differences between Americanized fear against Muslims and the Islamic faith.

"You have an entire community calling it Islamophobia and a community of Muslims calling it Islamophobia," said university aluma and panelist Rayyan Ghuma. "It's all about semantics now."

"It takes us labels for us to do anything," said Omnia Joehar, junior government and politics major. "How many have stood up until 'Islamophobia' was made?"

Yesterday's discussion even spurred Elizabeth Rosenberg, co-president of the Interfaith Dialogue Project, to address the same topic with her group members next week.

Comissiong said he hoped the discussion was a start to spreading awareness so others can continue to address the issue on the campus.

"We want people to leave with a heightened consciousness," said Comissiong. "We want them to have a feeling of empowerment."

Oh, no worries, Comissiong. They feel plenty empowered.

| 154 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

154 Comments

| Leave a comment

Omitted from this propaganda piece (masquerading as "news")is ANY reference to the photographed gentleman to the right of the podium-- Hodari Abdul-Ali of MANA.
http://www.freestuff.umd.edu/events.cfm?mode=detail&eventID=12007

JihadWatch readers will recall, Abdul-Ali endorsed Jamaat Al Muslimeen, who were linked by the FBI in a 2007 JFK airport bombing plot.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3550

Last semester MSA hosted MANA's founder, the unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing, Siraj Wahhaj.
http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=amcyNm11NDUzbjNrZWxjNm9ncmN2aWtnZGcgbmVsMTkwYjhiM24zamt1ZHM1b3F2aWtwYzRAZw

Wahhaj advocates the replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic Caliphate.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=716

Last year, campus MSA hosted al-Qaeda advocate, Mauri Saalakhan, on campus.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/troublemaking-dissenters-at-palestinian-solidarity-week

Mauri Saalakhan, Director of Operations for The Peace And Justice Foundation, has supported: teen female suicide bombers from NY, Zacharias Moussaoui, Abu Musab Al Zawaqawi, the Ft. Dix jihadis, the Blind Sheikh, and now Al Awlaki.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/muslim-newspaper-in-u-s-defends-anwar-al-awlaki/

Who is approving this serial abuse of State facilities to host terrorism advocates? Who is funding these pro-terrorism conferences, masquerading as "dialogue"? Are student fees used to pay for terrorism advocacy?

This is an unacceptable pattern of serial hate-mongering and creates a hostile educational environment in violation of campus policy. Where is the censure?

When will Diamondback accurately report on these serial terrorism advocacy campaigns on campus?

And how long before they delete these heterodoxic facts from their "open" comment thread?

"The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

I read somewhere that it was eight(8)...But since I was not there I can't say that with certainty...

Discussions like this are always going the wrong way.

I'm tired of platforms that are designed and allow Muslims to play the victim card, I'm tired of althoughs do gooders who try and appease their continuous grievances, to always make it about them and their needs to be seen as the victim. I'm sick of their whining and their complaining. It should be the other way around.

It is their religion that teaches the violence we see all over the world through dozens of Islamic terrorist groups. They don't care about non Muslim sensitivities or their grievances, it is always about them and their needs, We have to stop placating them and make them stand up to the problems their religion has created everywhere.

It is Muslims who need to make the changes,it is Muslims who need to be accountable, it is Muslims who need to step up and condemn terrorism forcefully and fully,it is Muslims and the fundamental teachings of Islam that overwhelmingly create the problems in the world.

The word Islamophobia was coined by a Member of CAIR.

"Islamophobia" is a null word, that is, it has no meaning. Any kuffar with half a brain knows that it is prudent to be afraid of Islam. There have been over 16,000 jihadi attacks since 9/11. If that doesn't convince you, Islam has killed an estimate 270 million unbelievers in the last 1400 years. Do the math. That's almost 200,000 people per year.

"The existence of 'Islamophobia' is a social failure," said Secretary of the Muslim Students' Association Osama Eshera. "This is an issue we all have to deal with together."

Presumably, "This is an issue we all have to deal with together" really means:

Infidels must conform to all Islamic norms and concede to the "demand du jour" from the Muslim exaggerated sense of entitlement.

The Muslim contribution to "deal with it together" will be to let the infidels do it but make no reciprocal moves whatsoever.

Why should they? They consider themselves the "best of people".

Very well put. You can add:

- We don't have to take off our shoes at airports because of Islamophobia

- We don't have metal detectors at the Sears Tower because of Islamophobia

- People didn't loose 3000 loved ones on 9/11 because of Islamophobia.

http://whyyouexist.blogspot.com

Studies have continuously shown that the correct answer to how many Muslims where killed on 9-11 runs between 19 and 28 over the past several years.

"The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

I read somewhere that it was eight(8)...But since I was not there I can't say that with certainty...

That would make 19+8=27 then? I guess if they have 300 (maybe they consider this to be their Battle of Thermopylae?) they must be counting the muslim murderers too?

Islam is a religion of cowards. The only thing they really respect is overwhelming force, and only when it is used against them. Then they slink back to their hidey-holes and caves to yell at the moon until the world forgets what they have done. Then they will sneak attack again.

If any American diplomats understood this, and acted accordingly, we might not have to deal with them again for another 500 years.

But, alas, they don't and we will, sooner rather than later.

Agreed, but while they continue to get concessions, they'll ask for more. It just reinforces their behaviour.


If someone actually stood up to a few demands, it might stop.

An answer of the following form would be so refreshing:

"Thank you, Mr Abdul Muhammad, for your request for ritual washing facilities in all bus stations, irrespective of cost. We appreciate the fact that it is a requirement of Sharia.

We have considered the request carefully. We have concluded that Sharia-compliance is not obligatory because existing national laws take precedence.

Whining 'Islamophobia' does not constitute an appeal.

Thank you and Good-Bye Mr Abdul Muhammad".

Maryland: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Virginia: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Michigan: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Florida: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Canada: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Britain: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

France: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Netherlands: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

Germany: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address

Italy: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism...

"The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

And let's not forget that a full 100% of victims of premature explosions of muslim bomb vests are muslims!

Islamophobia denotes fear, I am not afraid, I am informed thus I want to protect my freedom, my Constitution, my country from Islamist.

Not fear, knowledge.

LOL
Thanks, I needed that...

Hi! I do not mean to be condesending here, but the fact that muslims killed so many people is kind of not relvant. chrsittains did the same. the only religion that did not kill was Judaism. that being siad, what is really important to high light is Islam who is causing this not muslims.

And here is the basis of so-called "Islamophobia"
("It's not islamophobia if they actually are tying to kill you")

"It's In The Koran" Song - funny but true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircyw2bnWpg&feature=related

miriam love,that makes no sense to me, Islam is an ideology, nothing more ,it is the Muslims who practice that ideology, who carry out the comands in the Quran that are killing people. So yes Muslims are the problem.

Also, when did Christians kill people? How years ago was that, one, two hundred? Compare that to Muslims killing people even today in the name of Islam.

THe fact that Christians killed people one or two hundred years ago does not excuse the Muslims killing NOW.

[miriam rove sneered: "chrsittains [sic] did the same"]

That is an illogical strawman and 'tu quoque'. Even if such Christianophobic slanders were true, they do not speak to whether (so-called) "Islamophobia" exists.

As has been pointed out at length by others, "phobia" describes an irrational fear: and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of sharia law and Islamo-supremacism is not irrational; but (on the contrary) very well-founded indeed.

If one wishes to speak of "phobia", one should speak instead of Candor-phobia, the fear of and revulsion toward perfectly legitimate criticisms of Islam.

Thus Secular Muslims (interested in reform) are left unsupported because Leftists fear being accused of bigotry by Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, more than they fear being branded moral cowards for abandoning the defense of human rights.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

Lan astaslem!

hi! I am not trying to compare here. you can not tie all muslims to this issue. just scroll down here and you see that Robert Spencer is introducing an Iranian muslim speaking at 9-11 as true moderate muslim. so to that end, It is ISLAM that is doing it not muslims. the muslims who are out there blowing up people and planes practise the Wahabi version of Islam which is the most oppressive version of Islam. as most people know here I was a muslim and I know a lot about Islam. not every sect of muslims parctise a violent Islam. here is how I can put it for you.
There are two countires that sponsor state terrorism
Iran and Syria
there one f...ing country that finances the militants. Saudi Arabia.
there are nationals of 4 countries that go around killing people and blowing things yp.
Saudis
Yemenis
Afghanis(talibans) and pakistanis. all of these people pratice the wahabi version of Islam which the most oppressive and the most viloent version of Islam.
so you do not see Iranians strapping bombs, or Syrians, or Lebanonese, so to paint everyone wiht the brush is not right. those muslims who partice modearte Islam are crucial to undoing the militants and the terrsirsits.
M

[mariam: "not every sect of muslims parctise a violent Islam."]

I believe my comments supporting secular Muslims made that clear. Why then did you feel the need to slander Christianity to make your point? That is illogical ('tu quoquo') and flimsy reasoning.

Notwithstanding, I applaud your appeal to secularism and moderation.

There is NO "Islamophobia". It should be struck from the record of 'approved' terms, just like the Obama administration struck from the record 'Jihad' or 'Muslim terrorism'. Let denial rule the day.

not every sect of muslims parctise a violent Islam.

Which ones are those?

Thank you Miriam,

More people need to stand up to Wahabi islam. We've been waiting to hear from more of you, actually.

The sad thing is, that the Wahabi movement follows the Koran quite literally. That is a very scary thought for any women anywhere, and all Jews and Christians.

And since you mention Saudi Arabia - here is a reason to be VERY concerned about all this:
Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim "Plant" in the White House?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE&p=9A6485A97316484F&playnext=1&index=44

General Education:
"It's In The Koran" Song - funny but true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircyw2bnWpg&feature=related

The Qur'an CHALLENGE! (Steven Crowder)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuG0ifhPxRc&feature=related

READ - "An Abridged Koran" - here's why:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/12/abridged-koran.html

How does Robert's behavior stack up against his recommendations for Muslims.

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

Does Robert focus his indignation on the far more extensive violence done in his name?

2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.

Does Robert renounce terrorism? Israel's terrorism against the Palestinians makes Islamic terrorism look small. The US has the distinction of being the only state ever convicted of state sponsored terrorism by the international criminal court and the UN. Does Robert renounce that? Has Robert stated unequivocally that Palestinian civilians and Iraqi civilians killed in droves by the US and it's client state of Israel are innocent people?

3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

You have to go back centuries to find an instance of aggression by Iran. Meanwhile Robert's government has troops in Afghanistan today, and in fact if you ask an American why most have no clue. It's bewildering. So Robert's government is engaging in massive violence all over the world and the reasons aren't even clear. Does Robert think it's worth teaching Americans the imperative of peaceful coexistence?

4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.

How about some international programs in America to teach against violent aggressive wars that cause far more destruction and loss of life than Islamic jihad. Further since Robert lives in the country that is responsible for the most death and destruction he can have far greater influence on making the world a better place by conditioning his own countrymen to abandon their violent ways. But this idea escapes him, because like they hypocrites in the gospels that are so quick to note the sins of other while being blind to their own flaws he simply doesn't see sins unless they are the responsibility of "the other".

5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Like George Bush, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Under international law aggression is the supreme international crime differing from lesser crimes only in that it entails the accumulated evil of the whole. That is, all the consequences of aggressive wars, resultant civil wars and infighting, etc, trace their causal roots to the initial act of aggression. Right wing war mongers are the supreme law breakers. Does Robert suggest we apprehend them? Or are crimes only crimes if they are committed by other people that differ from us in their skin tone and culture?

What you've outlined that Muslims need to renounce is basically INFIDELOPHOBIA.

I have been compiling a list of infidelophobia examples on my forum. I would love assistance from any of your learned and astute supporters.

Infidelophobia Examples
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3456

As always, keep up the great work!

Glad to see your list again of the five things Muslims can do to eliminate "Islamophobia," Robert. It is a succinct distillation that cuts right to the heart of the problem, and will be especially valuable for new visitors who have not seen it before. How about publishing this list on the JW side bar, as well?

"We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash," Comissiong said. "


What backlash?

Does he mean protesting against being run over by the islamic tsunami, like the people in India?

Could he mean a sudden awareness of what islam is?

just like christianty there many different sects, ahmadis, sufis, bahai,sunnis other than wahabis, quit a few.
m

ROFLMAF...if I stop laughing for 2 minutes, I might respond.

[idiotarian sneered: "The US has the distinction of being the only state ever convicted of state sponsored terrorism by the international criminal court and the UN."]

Pernicious nonsense. Neither body had jurisdiction.

See also, the Monroe Doctrine.

not every sect of muslims parctise a violent Islam.

Which ones are those?

I already know the names of most sects, but you did not answer the question I asked...the one above...

once again, I did not mena to make a comparison, if a religion that preaches hate it does not matter if it killed one or a million. it is still hateful. I am assuming by leftisits you mean liberlas right? if so all those muslims apposing the radical Islam are liberals.

Nice pie charts, I grant you that...
And I agree I'd like to see us get out of Afganistan and Iraq

BUT - before those wars your numbers wouldn't add up - and we were attacked, anyway. We were like the big dog sleeping on the porch - very slow to growl...Hostage crisis, embassies blown up, etc. There was also a middle east component connected to Timothy McVeigh, also, but Clinton "didn't want to go there..."
We can also thank Clinton for radicalizing Europe with Monica's war. So - it's been messed up for a while. And I guess it all got really spicy when we helped the Afghans fend off the Russians...(weapons training, etc.) So really, we famously tried the tactic of "let's be buddies with the Muslims" - help 'em out...and that really didn't work. (Why? BECAUSE OF THE KORAN - that's why)
The 3 cups of tea looks a little promising - but who can tell?

But I dug the pie charts anyway...

So this site does (below) not have cool graphics like your link - but it is still quite informative. Plenty of terrorist attacks happen that have NOTHING to do with USA - but everything to do with Muslims trying to oppress Christians and Jews.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

So yes - I'd like to see us out of Iraq and Afganistan...But I doubt that will stop our problems with Islam.

And, in closing, this wraps it up nicely, with a bow:
Does Islam Suck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzC0ZEZ8NQ

[jon spat: "indignation on the far more extensive violence done in his name?"]

Even if (contrary to evidence) it were true (hypothetically) that American peacekeepers in Iraq were (somehow) motivated to mass murder by the teachings Robert Spencer— that ludicrous assertion is illogical ‘tu quoque.’ Moreover, it does not speak to the issue of whether jihadi death fatwas (cited by Robert) should be condemned by “moderate” Muslims.

But thanks for conclusively demonstrating the ludicrous anti-Americanism underlying your illogical efforts to chase a wild goose with a red herring around a flaming strawman.

[Cluebat: The Iraq War was justified.]
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

/dismissed

I am really sorry. I did not have any intention of slandering christianity. so if that is how it came accross I do appologize. however, I want you to knwo that there is nothing I hate more that any religions.
M

Jon...Fresh off Comedy Central...You are pretty good with off color jokes...But mostly you are just a waste of bandwidth...

[jon sneered: "Under international law aggression is the supreme international crime"]

Why then isn’t billionaire progressive George Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against ObaMao’s summary execution of civilians by Reaper drone airstrikes? Afterall, Obama’s tactic is clearly more “extremist” than Bush’s post-9/11 moistening of KSM (et.al.) at Gitmo.

Obama’s policy to use Reaper drones against un-Mirandized civilian targets has increased markedly without a peep. Get busy, jon.

Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until the ICC (or the UN) demand Obama either releases his birth certificate or end his Reaper drone madness.

Hi Marylouise! the wahabis area danger to humanity. anyone regardless of their origin and belief who disagree with them is a target. most people here do not know that this stict version of Islam, consider the Shia muslims enemy of Allah and cosoder halal to spill thier bloods. I am not sure what your politick are. however I am assuming since most people on this site are conservative you are too. my politicks are to the left and I hate the jihadists. however saying that Obama is a mulim in the white house or someone who caters to Islam and muslims or Saudi Arabia is not true. I have been here 33 years and every president has been in bed with the saudis in a major way. most notably Bush Sr and JR. did you know that right after 9-11 Bush seniore got all the Bin Ladens out of the us?

Nice pie charts... BUT - before those wars your numbers wouldn't add up - and we were attacked, anyway. We were like the big dog sleeping on the porch - very slow to growl...Hostage crisis, embassies blown up, etc. There was also a middle east component connected to Timothy McVeigh, also, but Clinton "didn't want to go there..."

They started it, we must finish it. We have the power to do so. Let the primitives feel the full force of our retaliation to all their killings, burnings, rioting, deceits and suicide bombings. Islam is dying, it self inflicts its own casualties, so our counter-attack will be merciful, and end its suffering quickly. We can finish this, if we will it.

It really angers me to see we are losing our free speech rights to a small minority. And Obama brings in more Muslim immigrants, so I wonder how long will we as Americans tolerate this. We need to halt most Muslim immigration and deport those who actively want to overthrow our constitution and replace with Islamic law. Time to Wake up America!

[idiotarian slandered: "Iraqi civilians killed in droves by the US and it's client state of Israel are innocent people"]

What justifies jon’s odious slander of American peacekeepers as killers? Apparently, American peacekeepers overseas are now more evil than al-Qaeda?

jon (like other hateful Leftists) believes that Saddam and al-Qaeda are less evil than our brave American soldiers. The 22 legitimate casus belli cited by Congress against Saddam were clear: Saddam did try to kill a former American president; the U.N. embargo was violated (as were its inspection protocols); the 1991 accords were ignored; the genocide of brave Kurds did happen; suicide bombers were being given bounties; terrorists (including those involved into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were given sanctuary by Saddam; and on and on.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Clearly, Leftists prefer the rape rooms of Qusay and Uday to the elected government of our new Iraqi allies.

Don’t spit al-Qaeda propaganda your whole life, jon.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

/dismissed

"BUT - before those wars your numbers wouldn't add up - and we were attacked, anyway. We were like the big dog sleeping on the porch - very slow to growl..."

An average of 3 bombing runs in Iraq every week for 12 years from after the end of the Persian Gulf War up until the start of the 2003 invasion. Is that what you call a sleeping dog?

Is this a sleeping dog? Something on the order of a million dead children in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes by Lesley Stahl about the fact that by then (1996) half a million children had died in Iraq due to the sanctions imposed by the US. Was the price worth it? She said yeah, it was.

The population at the time was something like 20 million, so if you were to consider a similar atrocity in the US it would be as if 7.5 million had died. If a foreign state killed 7.5 million of our citizens, do you think we'd notice?

Robert should consider the beam in his own eye before complaining of the speck in his neighbor's eye.

"...However saying that Obama is a muslim in the white house or someone who caters to Islam and muslims or Saudi Arabia is not true..."

And you KNOW that, how? He looks like it, acts like it - and he campaigned for Sharia in Kenya - and his father was a muslim,....so hmmmm - and his stepfather was a muslim. He adopted the middle name Hussein on his own...He studied in a muslim school, and I'm pretty sure he demanded that his wife not hold a paying job...(okay - I've got no details on that one - just a chance remark Michelle said once...and right, that doesn't make him muslim - just socially conservative like a muslim husband would be - not like a typical Harvard grad) - he traveled to Pakistan way back when....and his school records here are closed...so hey I can believe he is a Saudi plant somehow. They probably paid for his Harvard education, and more... But most muslims are not pro-abortion, right? So that is the only thing that keeps me wondering, is he or isn't he?
So, he is probably a commie/muslim blend. That would really match his mixed up heritage, actually.
But he does have nice kids, and Michelle is a good Mom - I will say that - to be fair.

NEVER SUBMIT

We know the unassailable ignorance won't allow evidence to penetrate that orifice in which Leftists hide their brain cavity, but it should be clear by now that the UN sanctions regime-- under which millions of Iraqis died-- was violated by Saddam. Saddam abused the food for oil program to starve Iraqis and finance gold plated toilet plungers for his palaces.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Those piles of Iraqi corpses remain at Saddam's feet; thus, the Iraqi noose around Saddam's neck. And the suffering of those Iraqi innocents is on the hands of international Leftists (like jon) who supported Saddam.

Of course, that's not the only steaming pile of corpses your Marxist dogs left in history's living room. But don't be an odious apologist for Saddam your whole life, jon.

I heard it was 8 + the 18 terrorists = 26

and 26 is the number I've heard floated around most often.

Nobody denies that Saddam was an atrocious monster, as is OBL. Many of today's war critics despised him in the 80's as he gassed the Kurds with US weaponry and support. Let's remember that when Congress tried to condemn the atrocity the Reagan administration blocked it.

Or consider the Shiite rebellion. Bush Sr called for it and when it happened he aided Saddam as he crushed that rebellion, killing hundreds of thousands and filling mass graves. I despise those crimes and US support for them, but what I do affirm is what I regard as an elementary moral truism. Your first priority should be the actions you are responsible for and can control. It us useless and unhelpful to focus on the crimes of others that aren't listening to you and you can't control. But it does make you feel good.

So we should focus first on US crimes, and that would be true if US crimes were the lesser crimes. Turns out they aren't, but if they were I would still decry them.

The failure is yours. This is elementary moral reasoning.

Another elementary moral principle is the principle of universality, which says that we must apply the same standards to ourselves that we demand of others. So if the US is entitled to anticipatory self defense, is Iran entitled to the same as Israel constantly threatens them? Is Cuba entitled to bomb Washington in response to massive US terrorism directed against them and the anticipation of more? Was Japan correct to bomb Pearl Harbor in response to the fact that B117 flying fortresses were being delivered to the PHilippines and the US was talking about the fact that Tokyo was a paper city that would be easy to burn to the ground? Elementary moral reasoning says that if you affirm the right of the US to invade based on the pretexts of Bush and Blair you must likewise affirm the Iranian right to bomb Israel. I reject that they have that right, but then I am capable of elementary moral reasoning.

How odd, Muslim say they aren't allowed to drink and even some cabbies won't carry non-Muslims with booze on them.

But ever since 2001 CAIR's favour Whine is the vintage 2001 "Islamophobia" or the very flat less bubbly "Racial-profiling" from popping the cork too soon and letting it be exposed to the Media Air-wave too long.

The flying Imam's love the air-Port white Whine called "Anti-Muslim" ,it has a long Belt to it and gets you really High but then you Crash very soon and it's "To die for".

When another one of these forums show up that any one of us can attend, we need to try to get there and be involved.

Bring a laptop with ability to get online. Find out the speakers names and google them to find out more information. Had I been sitting there, this could have easily been done and I'm sure half the people in the audience would have been shocked to know the associations of the people lecturing them about "Islamaphobia".

Does any of the sites like Jihad Watch have "dossiers" on all the known bad actors in the Muslim world? If not we should start building them complete with videos of them doing things that would shock normal reasonable thinking Americans. This way if we attend a panel discussion like this and find one of the bad actors on the panel, we could confront them in front of all the other people. This would at least get people thinking "what's going on?". If nothing else, the people would see for themselves the hypocrisy of one decrying "islamaphobia" while at the same time inciting hatred toward non-muslims. It would be even better for the person attending to try and explain what Taqiyya means and people would know they are currently watching it from that bad actor.

Your first priority should be the actions you are responsible for and can control. It us useless and unhelpful to focus on the crimes of others that aren't listening to you and you can't control.

This 'truism' Jon is only true during times of peace. In war, it is reversed, where we must address the enemy first. We are at war with Islam, undeclared on our side, but fully declared on theirs. Which side you on?

[mariam whined: "saying that Obama is a mulim in the white house or someone who caters to Islam and muslims or Saudi Arabia is not true."]

People believe Obama is Muslim because he was a practicing Muslim. This matters because Obama is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion-- who (under sharia law) is subject to the most severe penalties. Obama's apostate status clearly has enormous implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam
http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam

In sum: The cited evidence demonstrates that Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates the assertion that Obama for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father.

Therefore, what many consider a falsehood is in fact confirmed by evidence as truthful and accurate. The fact that so few understand this about Obama is a testimony to the Obamedia puppets disinformation and denial campaigns.

Denying Obama's Muslim heritage is in itself a falsehood.

Marylouise my friend, this is a little far fetched!!! even if he was a muslim, one has to assume that his loyalties is to our country. I think you have problems with his policies and I do appreciate it. however I do think he is genuine, and while I did vote for him, I have yet to be impressed. aren't muslims against abortion? no more or less than catholics are. you have a variety of opinions out there. unlike in the states, no where else in the world abortion is a politcal issue.

Big question.
Short answer: crappy planet. But people have been trying to figure out the morals and ethics of when to strike, for a long time.

"...The right and obligation of a governing authority to use force to defend its citizens against an aggressor predates by centuries modern nation-states and modern international law. Christian just war theory, upon which the modern laws of armed conflict are based, recognized such a duty as early as the 4th Century. Since their emergence in the 16th Century, modern nation-states have been believed to hold such a right. While aggression is traditionally considered unlawful, and self-defense lawful, more problematic is the question of whether a first-strike could ever be considered a defensive act rather than an act of aggression. The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent...

...One could argue that the rule does not actually require an attack to be imminent to act, but rather permits defensive measures to be taken before one passes a point in time when it is too late to prevent catastrophe. "
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/preemptive-war.cfm

[mariam whined: "saying that Obama is a mulim in the white house or someone who caters to Islam and muslims or Saudi Arabia is not true."]

One disastrous effect of Obama's status as a Muslim apostate was the way it emboldens Islamo-supremacists.

Take the case of Kaddafi; who insists that Obama is a Muslim and hopes "that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity... and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs."

Clearly, Kaddafi got his wish in Obama's submissiveness to the Lockerbie bomber release.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/26/did-the-obama-administration-push-for-lockerbie-bombers-release/

Kaddafi celebrated that odious anniversary with Megrahi over Ramadan.

But it really isn't two countries that sponsor state terrorism....it's not "States"- there are a multitude of loose cannons doing violence without being affliated. These psychos are all over, particularly working in Pakistan, West Bengal. and northern India, and the rest of India AND Sudan/Darfur.

[mariam whined: "saying that Obama is a mulim in the white house or someone who caters to Islam and muslims or Saudi Arabia is not true."]

Another disastrous effect of Obama's status as a Muslim apostate is the way it emboldened sharia law advocate, Raila Odinga, against American-ally Kenya President Mwai Kibaki. Obama was unequivocal in his support of Odinga, going so far as bragging to his shills and sycophants in the media.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/obamas_other_life.html

Here's the MOU establishing Odinga's sharia law rule;
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf

Obama was behind this constitutional change in Kenya in support of sharia law.

Lest we get distracted overseas, Americans think Obama backs sharia law because of his actions HERE... not just overseas.

Obama's court nominee sees no "reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0

Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Just the facts, jacks.

Jon said "You have to go back centuries to find an instance of aggression by Iran."
----------------------------------
Lebanon Bombing - Hezbollah Suicide bombers attack US Embassy killing over 200+ American soldiers and personnel.

Hezbollah - "Hezbollah receives its financial support from the governments of Iran and Syria, as well as donations from Lebanese people and foreign Shi'as."

Iran in Iraq - Iran's involvement in the Iraq war, March 3, 2008

Three Iranian Quds Force captured in Iraq raid - "Iraqi security forces captured three members of Qods Force, Iran's special operations branch, during a raid in Diyala province." March 13, 2009.

I don't think you even need to go back a few centuries Jon. Why don't you try google and just go back one year or even a few years and you'll find samples of Iranian aggression against the US. I'm sure they didn't teach you that in your progressives school of hatred.

[Jon said "You have to go back centuries to find an instance of aggression by Iran."]

Right. If by centuries, you mean last week.

"Freed Berkeley hostage begs Iran to free her 2 friends‎"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/20/MNU11FGF6T.DTL

Assisting people in repelling an occupying or invading army is not actually aggression, B. If it were then US funding of the Afghan resistance would be US aggression, but it is not. When is the last time Iran invaded a foreign state?

I don't count the terrorists as victims...

"...even if he was a muslim, one has to assume that his loyalties is to our country."

Oh, really, and WHY is that?

That is the rub - "assuming he is loyal to our country". I don't see it, personally.

He said "we have 57 states" - eh what? But, Oh! There are the 57 Islamic states. So where is his heart? Where is his loyalty? No American would make a mistake like that. It is basic...no one even has to think about it. I'm pretty sure the dumbest kids in our failing high schools know we have 50 states. But even the smartest ones don't really know there are 57 Islamic states so that one flew right over most heads. Pity that.

And if that was his only offense fine. It wasn't really an offense - but a "tell" or a Freudian slip. But what about Ft. Hood - Oh, My dear God, what about Ft. Hood?
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2009/11/06/obama-s-fort-hood-screw-up.aspx

B.O.:

"...Well, look, we — we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable....I think the questions that we’re asking now and we don’t have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who’s acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations?..."

Yeah, right...When have we had another instance when 13 soldiers were slaughtered by a devout Muslim from a radical mosque screaming “Alluha Akbar” while he shoots them dead?
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/unreal-obama-hasan-may-have-%E2%80%98cracked%E2%80%99-from-%E2%80%98stress%E2%80%99/

If nothing else, let the military do concealed carry, or open carry, for heaven's sake. The war is now here.

Iran has direct involvement in all those situations.

Hezbollah was setup as a proxy army for Iran in dealing with the US in other countries.

Iranian Quds forces in Iraq plus the training they gave insurgents with regards to shape-charged IEDs is tantamount to direct involvement in the Iraq war. They also supplied the munitions to insurgents and continue to do so today. Same for Afghanistan.

Jon...I know this is hard for you to understand...but this is Jihadwatch...Not America bashing watch...Why don't you take this stuff to a place it's appreciated...like your local mosque there in Yemen...

That's not aggression KDE. It may be odious, but it's not aggression. I'm talking about aggression, the supreme international crime.

That's not aggression KDE. It may be odious, but it's not aggression. I'm talking about aggression, the supreme international crime.

Oh...You mean Islamic hegemony...I could agree with that...

Iran funding violence? aggression?

Oh, how the West is distracted.

It's not just Iran.

Have we forgotten Saudi Arabia? All they have to do is sit there behind the curtain and dole out billions to other islamic countries, to do their dirty work.

[Jon sneered: "Assisting people in repelling an occupying or invading army is not actually aggression"]

Unless it's Guatamalans repelling Sandanistans-- or Grenadians repelling Cubans-- only then do international Leftists howl about "illegal" aggression.

But form UN-authorized international coalitions to liberate Afghanis from Taliban mass murderers-- or Iraqis from genocidal Ba'athists-- and suddenly we're "occupying."

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” --Matthew 23:24--

I guess Miriam Rove is not going to answer my question about just which Islamic sects do not practice violence...

jon: you may return to your embroidery.

sorry. I did earlier but it is not posted.
Ahmadis, sufi, bahais, sunnis who do not adhere or parctice wahabi.
m

Have we forgotten Saudi Arabia? All they have to do is sit there behind the curtain and dole out billions to other islamic countries, to do their dirty work.

King Abdullah, knows when to hold em and knows when to fold em...He's a far better poker player than the Iranian mullahs, who do a lot of bluffing...I don't think anyone has forgotten about Saudi Arabia, but Iran is the screeching wheel getting all the grease at the moment...Besides Rasool Obama loves the Saudi's almost as much as Bush...Bush held hands but I don't think he ever curtsied...Outside their Shia supporters no one loves the Ayatollah and his top henchman Ahmadinejad...

"The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

I read somewhere that it was eight(8)...But since I was not there I can't say that with certainty...

I think it's about 3. "300?" Total 100% propaganda, worthy of Goebbels.

Just when we got through having a dragged-out tussle with one troll ("Thereisonlynogod") in another thread, now this thread is threatening to burgeon with the hot air of another ("Jon").

I repeat my advice to Jihad Watch commenters: If you cannot control yourself and you simply must respond to what a given troll writes (and "Jon" did us the favor of immediately signalling his trollery with the following absurd sentence -- Does Robert focus his indignation on the far more extensive violence done in his name?), respond to the troll's content in the third person -- never address him in the second person or by name.

Ahmadis, sufi, bahais, sunnis who do not adhere or parctice wahabi.

You did not answer my question Miriam...are you trying to slip out of it? You said not all Islamic sects practice violence...I asked you which ones...Are you trying to say that Wahabi are the only sect that practices violence as demanded in Quran and Sharia?

"I'm talking about aggression, the supreme international crime."

Oh right - Islamic Jihad. But, you know that, Muslim.

Eastview,

Glad to see your list again of the five things Muslims can do to eliminate "Islamophobia," Robert. It is a succinct distillation that cuts right to the heart of the problem...

For another perspective on Spencer's 5-point plan, see my essay, Dejà voilà!

And, Eastview, we need to remember that that roughly-estimated figure of 200 000 people a year human-sacrificed (de facto) by Islam, mostly happened when the total world population was a *lot* smaller than it is today.

200 000 people out of six billion is one thing. But 200 000 people butchered in a year in, say, 750 AD, or 900 AD, or 1100 AD, or even in 1600 or 1700 AD, is quite another, considered as a proportion of the total world population of humans at the time.

One wonders, too, about the long-term drain on human potential brought about by Muslim enslavement and abuse-unto-death: one wonders what Africa might have looked like, say, without the massive vampire-like destruction of the best of the young men and women by the Muslim slave traders; or what the Serbs and Greeks would be like today, if their best and brightest young men and women had not been continually siphoned off by the devshirme, year after year, century after century, most of them never to have descendants.

there are two questions here and before there was one. yes that is exactly what I am saying. the wahabi's are responsible for 99% of all the vioence. they are the most adherent of muslims and they translate the koran just literrly. you did not ask me about Sharia. this is different.
some do and some do not. my sister goes by the book but she a lawyer, and tries cases in courts.

Here's the deal:

If Islam didn't exist, the world would be a peaceful place.

End of story.

Miriam said - "Ahmadis, sufi, bahais, sunnis who do not adhere or parctice wahabi.
m"

It would be cool if you could post a short description of each Islamic Sect. I do know Wahabbi sect is the one that Osama Bin Ladin belong to, they also consider themselves Sunni Muslims as well. Most of the insurgents were Sunni Muslims in "Al-Queda in Iraq".

Iranians on the other side were supplying Shia Muslims with insurgent training, IEDs and weaponry to fight the US Forces. There is a Shia guy, Muqtada al-Sadr. He was well respected and the leader of the biggest shia opposition group in Iraq. It was rumored he went to Iran for a few months and came back.
-------------------
As a side note in response to some other posts. There are two main forces present in the Middle East with regards to Muslims, Sunni and Shia. Currently they are mostly represented by Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia).

Before the 2003 Iraq War, these two opposing forces were Iraq (Sunni) and Iran (Shia). The 1980's Iran Iraq war was over the Sunni - Shia divisions in Islam. Now that Iraq has been sidelined, Saudi Arabia was brought to the fore as representative of Sunni Muslims.

In the past 5 or so years, Iran has increased its hegemony and its rhetoric towards the US and its Sunni neighbors. This is one of the major reasons why Saudi Arabia is buying arms from the US. There is increasing speculation that Saudi Arabia and Iran may be drawn into conflict.

So it seems that even when Islam is not busy fighting in Dar Al-Harb, they are fighting each other in Dar Al-Islam. So much for the "religion of peace".

I guess you are not going to answer that question...Islam and sharia are one, sharia invokes violence...
Which sects do not indulge in any violence? That 99% is done strictly by Wahabi is not an answer to the question asked...But I give up...You either don't really know, or you don't want to say...

It would be cool if you could post a short description of each Islamic Sect.

There are 72, maybe 73 different sects...I read the list and what the differences are, but I didn't save it or memorize it...I doubt that Miriam knows...

Failure to charge riles Muslims--They demand sharia law implementation

-Local Muslim leaders are upset prosecutors won't pursue charges against a man who burned a Quran outside an East Lansing mosque.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100923/METRO/9230388/1409/metro/Failure-to-charge-riles-Muslims

Hi B! the diffirence is how they interpret the Koran. here is an example and I think it would answer your question.

My girl friend is Jewish and I her and her freinds hit and run jews! they go to temple twice a year for roshashan and yum kippur and the very next day they eat egss and bacon. however they very much condider theselves Jewish. now take this group and comapre them to ultra orthodox Jews. you see the diffeirence?

you should not use the word Iranians and frankly that is a little upsetting. instead you should use" the Iranian government" supplies arm etc.... our people have nothing to do with it and just that you know during last year's uprising the biggest slogan was " Not Gaza, not lebenon, but Iran". as for the sunnis and shais..
99% of all Iranians are shias. there are two reasons that they fight each other. in particulr in Pakaistan where there is a sizable pouplation of shais are there yet the majority are sunnie. the reason the sunni kill the shia is because the pracrice the wahabi version of Islam and therfore the shias are infidel and it is ok to spill thier blood.

However the situation in Iraq is very different. if you look at a map of say 1800's you will not find a country names Iraq, lebenon, syria etc.. these are all borders drawn up by the british. back then it wsa Baghdad, Beirut, or damescus. as you may know Iranians are not Arabs and I am a shmed to admitt this that the haterd of Iranian people for Arabs are legendry. just like the call someone a nigger Iranains call the Arabs "people who eat lizards" a very dragorty term. you see when the arabs coqured the persian Empire we only took their religon and every other aspcet of our culture stayed the same. and then we deafeated the Arbs as you know and we ruled Baghdad for centureis. while we were there we forced it down their throats to convert fron Sunni to Shia. this is centuries old and it is not going to go away soon. just as aside note, everyone who is ruling in Iraq in some ways ows ti to the Iranian government.
Hope this explains things.
m

You can find this list and the differences between them here...

http://www.real-islam.org/73_8.htm

You might notice that this list does not include Bahai as Miriam did...Nor does it list Sufi or Wahabi...

Miriam said - you should not use the word Iranians and frankly that is a little upsetting. instead you should use" the Iranian government" supplies arm etc.... our people have nothing to do with it and just that you know during last year's uprising the biggest slogan was " Not Gaza, not lebenon, but Iran". as for the sunnis and shais"

If you remember my posts before I am well aware that the Iranian people and their Government are at odds. Many of my friends were hoping that the opposition would win out and Ahmenidijad would be toast. When I refer to Iranians, you may have to change that in your mind to "Iranian Government". But do know that I am aware of the difference.

Just a question to you, do you consider yourself a "secular" Muslim? The jewish gal you mentioned is considered to be a secular jew. She observes holidays and some religious rituals but doesn't regularly attend synagogue. I consider myself a secular Christian or more likely a spiritual person based in judeo christian values. I observe some Christian holidays and Christian values guide my life (do onto others as you would have them do unto you, thou shall not kill, etc etc). I am friends with many Secular Muslims who are just like myself, trying to earn a living, provide for their family and excercising their freedoms in the US.

If you are secular Muslim, then most of what is said on here is not directed towards you. I'm sure you already knew that. As I've seen you speak out against people who lump sum all the Muslims as being the same. They are not. The Muslims we do have issue with are the ones who are Jihadists or who try to install Sharia Law in their host country. Sharia Law is against the constitutional principles on which the US was founded. It is also against the doctrine of Human Rights, which baffles me as to why any member of the OIC is a participant of the Human Rights Council.

Yes, Christians have done horrible things but killing and violence was never condoned by the Gospel or Jesus.

Muslims can't say the same about Mohammad and their Quran.

thank you. I was brought up in a conservative muslim house hold. in fact we were not allowed to listen to Music. that how far it went. I hate reliogin all of them I despise religion and respecfully this whole notion of god is a bunch bull. however people believe in it and one has to respect it. religion is the single most significat stunt man kind has ever pulled. honestly if it was not for religion we would not be having this conversation now, would we? however Islam has violence attached to it and it makes that much more dangerous.
M

I would have shown up to this panel wearing a Teddy Bear costume with the word "Mohammed" embroidered onto its chest. I would tell them that I think it is disingenuous of people that consider themselves to be Muslims to apologize for their faith when their coreligionists use violence to suppress criticism, or depict the Prophet, because this was the behavior Mohammed used to coerce people. How do you actually rectify this incompatibility with our society with more than lip service?

once again, I am not defending anything.

are you asking me this question?

Miriam said "Islam has violence attached to it and it makes that much more dangerous."

This is true and at one time so did Catholicism and Christianity. What makes Islam all the more dangerous is that it is considered Apostasy to question the teachings of Islam. So there is no chance for the reformation periods that Christianity and other major religions have undergone. The only way for Islam to sort itself out is for enough Muslims to stand up say "enough is enough" and back away from the violent teachings. This won't happen and this is not the direction it's headed at this point in time.

Here's a book I would suggest for you to read. It's called Joseph Campbell "Power of the Myths". I read the book as a suggested reading in my Photography class in College and it opened my eyes in a big way. As a deaf person, I have dealt with depression (related to my deafness) all my life. For a long time I wondered "why has God cursed me with a hearing impairment". After reading the book, I came away with a different perspective. The values of my experience as a deaf person has shaped me into the person I am today. For this I am grateful.

The "Power of the Myths" talks a lot about metaphor related to the Star Wars movie so if you haven't watched that movie, I would suggest doing so before reading the book. The book itself is no more than 200 - 300 pages so its pretty short and easy read. It is definitely well worth the time.

[miriam sneered: "if it was not for religion we would not be having this conversation now, would we?"]

I believe that's just what Mao and Pol Pot said just before they marched all those Buddhists off to death camps.

You're seriously deluded if you think atheism has clean hands.

I never said that athiests did not commit crimes. Please do not make this kind of assumtions. Stalin was an athiest and he was the most brutal murderer of all times.

I am glad you found your waythat is precisley why I do not belive in god. if he love you so much then why do it? you see the dilema? he created you? and me? right? I have a majoe case od ADD? so did he have a few drinkd before wiring you and me?!

Thanks for your helpful reply. It is interesting to get more of an inside view.

The problem is this - the "worst" of Islam is done by the Wahabi - and yet they are inspired by the core teachings of the Koran and the hadiths.

The best thing one can say about Mohammad is the he got his people to pray 5 times a day. My hat is off to him for that. But if you read the Koran/hadiths - he even did that from ego! Hilarious!


You're seriously deluded if you think atheism has clean hands.

There are atheists that do not have clean hands, but there is no religion called Atheism...Because atheists do not believe in your god or any god, does not automatically make them mass murderers...There is no book of applied religious atheism that instructs non believers to kill, maim and torture religious people...The communists did that, but not because they were atheists, but because they were communists...

"...I am glad you found your way that is precisely why I do not believe in god. if he love you so much then why do it? you see the dilemma? he created you? and me? right? I have a major case of ADD? so did he have a few drinks before wiring you and me?!"

Miriam,
It would behoove you to study the laws of Karma and reincarnation to answer those particular questions.

"...Numerous Biblical passages support belief in reincarnation.(2) The doctrine of rebirth may be found, subsequent to Biblical times, in Jewish as well as in Christian traditions..."
http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/path/28.html

...Among famous Westerners who have subscribed to this doctrine, the German philosopher Schopenhauer wrote: “Were an Asiatic to ask me for a definition of Europe, I should be forced to answer him: It is that part of the world which is haunted by the incredible delusion that man was created out of nothing, and that his present birth is his first entrance into life.”(4) Voltaire wrote, “It is not more surprising to be born twice than once.” And the British philosopher Hume stated that reincarnation is “the only system to which Philosophy can so much as hearken.”

The problem is this - the "worst" of Islam is done by the Wahabi

I guess then we can almost forget about Sunni/Shia murders and jihad...All we have to do is eliminate Wahabi and the war against Islam and terror is just about over...

Maybe not...
My point was that the ones reading the Koran the most literally/seriously are doing the most harm...So that critique would be across the board - whoever is reading it seriously...

My other (unstated) point was that that this reflects rather poorly on Mohammad as a religious figure - but shows his effectiveness as a warlord and totalitarian politician:

"THE QURAN is Islam's most holy book. Sixty-one percent of the Quran is about non-Muslims. Writings about what Muslims should do is religious. Writings about what non-Muslims should do or how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims is political... Therefore, based on Islam's most holy book, Islam is more political (61%) than religious (39%).
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/what-non-muslims-dont-like-about-islam.html

NEVER SUBMIT

it really is very true. another thing that is going to help is a regim change in Iran.

"The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks." A quick Google turned up this site: http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/a/Muslim-Victims-Of-9-11-Attack.htm, the headline of which refers to "several dozen". Even that is spun, in my opinion, as if you take the time to read down to the bottom of the page, they list just 31 names. So, our "virtual reality" muslim has used an exageration factor of 10, similar to the MSM downsizing of your 9/11 protest march. I suspect this is factor is more widely used. Somebody mentioned Goebels; he would have been impressed.

Hi Miriam! You wrote above:
"Afghanis(talibans) and pakistanis. all of these people pratice the wahabi version of Islam which the most oppressive and the most violent version of Islam.
so you do not see Iranians strapping bombs, or Syrians, or Lebanese, so to paint everyone with the brush is not right. "

... dunno about the other branches/sects of Islam, but would you say Ahmadinejad was making stuff up when he said the following?

"Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future,"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383620,00.html

Thank you! Needed that!

Mackie: I read the article. It is quite extraordinary to read of the alleged pain suffered by Muslims over the Koran burning. There is something pathological and creepy about this public wailing, truly like spoiled children who have not learned to keep anything to themselves. I have personally experienced the feeling of tension created by Muslims in dealings with them, as if they are wired up to feel effronted and wounded and seem to be almost asking for offense so they can go "off" or extract some kind of compensation.

That Wahabi practices Islam seriously is not in dispute...Wahabi are Sunni...What I dispute is that 99% of Islamic jihad and terrorism comes from that group...You can totally eliminate Wahabi, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, and the jihad will continue...

You may be right - but I believe it was in the 1920's they brought in the intensity that we now see in many areas of Islam, whereas in the 1800's it was supposedly more mild - more influenced by sufi thought. I am now officially in over my head - so I'll quit.

I think the muslims added a zero to make the number of muslims killed on 911 more dramatic. Weren't there approximately 30 or 1% that were muslims?

I'm not sure katt, aren't there 100 googolplexes of Moslems in the world now? The number keeps rising faster than muhammad at a children's beauty pageant.

Hating all religion (a la your 1:59 P.M. post above) is not, I submit to you, a wise option, miriam rove. Religion at its best provides hope and inspiration for a multitude of folks who are, by nature, more inclined first and foremost to be motivated by the religious approach rather than by the philosophical one. I have no problem with this, even though I am not a religious guy.

My problem lies with those who would use their religious belief while in this world to control others inordinately. As of the present, only one major faith is guilty of this big time and that is Islam. Your blanket condemnation of religion largely fails to take this into account. Really, Mormons, Baptists, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Catholics, Lutherans, any remaining Zoroastrians, etc., do not, I repeat DO NOT, jeopardize my liberty. Muslims do because they are beholden to the ultimate control-freak religion and the absolutely worst major religious founder of all time---Mohammed (a clever and warped psychopath if there ever were one).

Could you please desist from your over and over again moral relativism and finally comprehend that only one major faith threatens Western liberties of all kinds. That major faith is Islam. Condemning other religions while condemning Islam is tedious, off the mark, not necessary, silly and, in general, annoying. Concentrate, would you, on the enemy du jour---Islam. I'm not intrested in your blanket excoriation of all religions. Engaging in such is just way off the mark.

Could ya' finally look beyond the horizon you've provided time and time again and see an even broader horizon? Give it a shot. You and so many others will be the better for it.

Thank you! Oh, this is so well put! I am so glad I came back and saw this:

"...Could you please desist from your over and over again moral relativism and finally comprehend that only one major faith threatens Western liberties of all kinds. That major faith is Islam. Condemning other religions while condemning Islam is tedious, off the mark, not necessary, silly and, in general, annoying. Concentrate, would you, on the enemy du jour---Islam."

Thank you, marylouise, for your gracious comment.

miriam rove in a few of his comments, e.g. --

My girl friend is Jewish and I her and her freinds hit and run jews! they go to temple twice a year for roshashan and yum kippur and the very next day they eat egss and bacon.

-- is purveying the notion that Muslims are approximately equally secularized as Jews and Christians.

One major point of this horrific mountain of data that is Jihad Watch is to show that Muslims are obviously not as secularized as Jews and Christians -- in myriad ways that any even nominally regular reader of Jihad Watch should know (and others have no excuse for not knowing that data).

miriam rove is either remarkably ignorant of the news out there (and history), or he is lying.

There is no third alternative.

"B" asked "miriam rove":

Just a question to you, do you consider yourself a "secular" Muslim?

I would comment:

What the fuck is a "secular Muslim"? Is that like a square circle? Or a boiling ice cube?

The more pertinent question to ask of miriam rove (which I have asked him at least twice, and he has ignored me as far as I know):

Do you abjure the following:

The Qur'an
Allah
Mohammed
Islam?

There is no follow-up question of any use to us if his answer is "no". In that case, he would remain our enemy; even if he might be a profoundly schizophrenic and confused one.

Secular Muslim would be one that identifies as being a Muslim but doesn't go to Mosque or is not so strict in the following of Islam. Really it would be more correct to call a Secular Muslim a "Cultural" Muslim instead.

Kind of like a Christian that calls himself a Christian but doesn't go to church. Observes some of the religious holidays, but maybe not all.

There are many people who identify with their religion but don't practice it. There are many who DO identify with the religion and DO practice it in a wrong way. I do know many Christians who do this as well.

I got the impression Miriam Rove was female based on the writing style. I could be wrong.

Our current president wasnot and isnot than muslim. He went to than private Islamist school in Indonesia didnot convert foreign student or they didnot have to goto islamist classes, they where allow to pray with muslim student at firday noontime prayer. His muslim father was never than pravition muslim. In our mosque quite afew of our muslim teenager goto private rome christian church school to get than better educrate than public school can deliver. All ready two muslim sister are interest in me.

www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/conversation-child-sex-trade-portland-11700090&nw1tv=WN_topvideos_position1pic
It than pimp was trying to get than muslim teenager girl to be his sex slave the entire Muslim comunity would take action like tearing very stripped clubs and other sex builtin on that street down.

www.youtude.com/watch?v=mt9EbxHTQ40
Miss USA 2010 isnot than practive muslim there is no death threat against her by any muslim. We are leaveing the door open to her to return if she want to.

Defenderofislam,

I hate to say this but if you want to talk with people on this board you need to work on your english skills. Based on what I read from you, english is your second language. It is difficult to decipher what you are trying to say.

"Jon" wrote:

How does Robert's behavior stack up against his recommendations for Muslims.

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

Does Robert focus his indignation on the far more extensive violence done in his name?
.....................

"Jon's" absurd verbiage here conjures up the image of hordes of Jihad Watchers rampaging through the streets, rabidly screaming "Spencer-u Akbar!" as they commit gratuitous acts of violence "in his name".

"Another elementary moral principle is the principle of universality, which says that we must apply the same standards to ourselves that we demand of others. ....

Elementary moral reasoning says that if you affirm the right of the US to invade based on the pretexts of Bush and Blair you must likewise affirm the Iranian right to bomb Israel."

Common sense, heard about it? This is a war, and u don't draw moral equivalences with the enemy.

With your moral reasoning, if we bomb enemy territory, they have the right to bomb ours. So we should allow them to exercise that right.

With your retarded moral reasoning, if you hold an Ak-47 and your enemy holds a pistol, u might want to give him an Ak too.

"Kind of like a Christian that calls himself a Christian but doesn't go to church."

There is no analogy or comparison of Islam with christianity.

And whether a muslim is secular/moderate/cultural whatever your favorite adjective. The key question remains, does he believe in the war manual (the quran), which directs him to make war against us?

hate to say this but if you want to talk with people on this board you need to work on your english skills. Based on what I read from you, english is your second language. It is difficult to decipher what you are trying to say.

Please don't waste your time trying to translate DOI's garbled mumbo-jumbo. Eleanor is the only regular poster who understands his language and she doesn't seem to be here tonight. Apparently DOI reads English better than he speaks (writes) it and FYI, on the rare occasions his beautiful prose is decipherable, it consists of incoherent or incomplete thoughts, non-sequiturs, and robotic rantings on the perfection of islam (in the face of damning evidence to the contrary.)

I think DOI is a provacateur who pretends to be retarded just to see if we will waste our time trying to figure out what he's saying. Last I heard, he was on his way to Pakistan to find some wives because he desperately wants to father some sons. God forbid!

Never forget it was the moderate one's who first came into this country and to whom where accorded the full rights and privileges that had been earned with the sweat blood and tears of our forefathers of which none where muslim..
Because of these moderates, armies of brainwashed and converted felons with a gripe against America stand ready to violently have their way and make demands and are ready to plunge us into social disorder and disharmony. It is the moderate ones which we educated and who stole our technology and knowledge and now run and operate cauldrons capable of bringing down our own existence with their dreams of genocide.
It is these moderates who come time and again to JW to attempt to derail and ridicule it's mission to permit the truth of islam to be known by some and who have seldom if ever called into question the moral value or ethical merit of their prophet who killed to conquer territory and win souls.
Recall that it was the 99% moderate Nazis who enabled the other 1% to bring on the death of 55 million souls.
Given the choice, the "radical' is the lesser enemy of the state and American people.

Dumbledore's Army wrote:

One wonders, too, about the long-term drain on human potential brought about by Muslim enslavement and abuse-unto-death: one wonders what Africa might have looked like, say, without the massive vampire-like destruction of the best of the young men and women by the Muslim slave traders; or what the Serbs and Greeks would be like today, if their best and brightest young men and women had not been continually siphoned off by the devshirme, year after year, century after century, most of them never to have descendants.
.....................

This is something I've considered at some length, Dumbledore's Army.

For the potential of Muslim *lands*, one need only look at Israel—which went from a run-down, neglected backwater with poor agricultural yields to the vibrant, productive society it is today—even while having to spend so much of her wealth and energy on defense.

While some Israelis are of Ashkenazi (European) background, many are Sephardic, and had lived under crushing dhimmitude in Dar-al-Islam. In addition, many were refugees from Muslim countries that had seized all their money and property before expelling them.

Perhaps, though, the most graphic example would be the Iberian peninsula. Prior to 1492, Christians in Spain and Portugal had had to focus almost all their energies and resources on dealing with Muslim tyranny—either as dhimmis trying to survive under Muslim rule, or as part of the Christian fight to reclaim the Iberian peninsula.

The *very same year* that threat was ended, an expedition under Spanish auspices—led, of course, by Christopher Columbus—would discover the Americas. This has always struck me.

A few years later another Iberian—Ferdinand Magellan, born Portuguese and exploring for the Spanish, would complete the first circumnavigation of the globe.

The unleashing of creative energy in the Iberian peninsula—in exploration, in politics, in the arts—once they were free of Islam is just remarkable.

You are right that in the places where Muslim depredations were worst—the Balkans, parts of India, and much of Africa—that the damage was so pervasive that the people, even where now free of Islam, are still suffering from its terrible effects.

Just in comparing Europe to Muslim North Africa—the differences are so striking. I often wonder at what might have been if so much of the world were not crippled by the terribly retarding creed of Islam.

There is NO SUCH THING as Islamophobia.

What there is: the religiously obsessed insanity of 9/11, the ridiculous Salman Rushdie fatwa, the grand guignol over the cartoons, the disgusting murder of Theo Van Gogh, the London bombings, Madrid, the Fort Hood massacre...and so on and on, all of it beyond contempt, to any sane person.

What there IS: growing awareness of Muslim madness and threat to the civilised world

For all the new lurkers we've been acquiring lately.

A couple of classics on the subject of 'Islamophobia'.

First, from Hugh Fitzgerald:

'Islamophobia? Really?'

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-islamophobia-really.html

and as posted by Phyllis Chesler on 'The Chesler Chronicles', the hilarious quiz devised by her friend Lorna Saltzman, entitled "Are you an Islamophobe? Take This Test to be Sure".

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/26/are-you-an-islamophobe/

I shall quote it in full, as it is not long, and I think all our newer readers might profit from the experience of filling it out, to see how they score.

"...a Test Guide for all those who are genuinely worried about their own racism or Islamophobia...

"Are you an Islamophobe? Here is a simple test.


Lorna Saltzman’s Test

"Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?

"Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery?

"Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere?

"Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?

"Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?

"Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?

"Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks?

"Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?

"Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?

"Do you oppose the death penalty for non-Muslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?

"Do you oppose “honor” killings?

"Do you oppose female genital mutilation?

"Do you oppose forced sexual relations?

"Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals?

"Do you support the right to criticize religion?

"Do you oppose polygamy?

"Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise?

"Do you oppose the quranic mandate to kill non-Muslims and apostates?

"Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country’s legal system?

"Do you disagree with the quran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?

"If you answered most or all of these affirmatively, you are a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the quran instructs.

"If you answered one third or more of them affirmatively, you are a borderline Islamophobe and need to receive brainwashing to become a full-fledged dhimmi.

"If you answered a quarter or fewer affirmatively, you need a few private lessons in dhimmitude to scrub yourself clean of those remnants of Islamophobia.

"If you answered affirmatively to NONE of these, Congratulations!

"You are a worthy observant ('radical' – PC addition) Muslim and have a bright future vilifying Jews, torturing women or, inshallah, becoming a suicide bomber.”

This would be an excellent quiz to print off, draw in the little boxes next to each question, for ticking 'yes' or 'no', and then use at parties to check the levels of 'Islamophobia' among those present.


AJ, Jesus said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Do you agree or disagree?

So for instance if I start shooting at a person I really think they have every right to repel me with deadly force. If I don't want to see them attempt to repel me with deadly force I should consider not shooting at them. It doesn't make sense to become indignant that they have gone so far as to attempt to repel me with deadly force. Elementary moral reasoning says they have that right.

Same with the launching of wars. When you launch an aggressive war people resist. That is their right. If we are going to complain about their response, as Spencer does, I think we are going to look ridiculous. We should consider bringing our aggressive wars to a close if we don't like the fact that they retaliate.

@H: It's really unnecessary to drop F-bombs here.

"Secular Muslims" are our allies.

Robert writes about them extensively.

They have a very informative website, if you care to learn.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

Try harder to remain civil.

Non sequitur alert! Jon@ AJ, Jesus said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Do you agree or disagree?
So for instance if I start shooting at a person I really think they have every right to repel me with deadly force.

Another example of muddled reasoning so typical of Muslim deceivers trying to make moral equivalence between those who profess goodness and those who murder. How does it follow from the Golden Rule to the Right of Self Defense? They are not even on the same planet.

To state them in the same vein is a logic fallacy. What Jesus taught in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a directive to NOT DO HARM to others, unnecessarily and if avoidable, but it certainly is NOT related to the a principle to our 'right of retaliation'. We can 'forgive' our enemy and still have the right to stop his aggression. So your "I start shooting a person.." is in no way related to the Golden Rule. More like the Evil Rule, rather than golden. Apples and Oranges.

So I agree with both principles, but do not agree one has anything to do with the other. They are not related, and their moral equivalence is hence false. Our right to self-defense is not the Golden Rule, but the right to stop aggression; whereas the other is to not do aggression. If Islam had the Golden Rule as one of its tenets, there would be no Jihad. But since they do not have it, Jihad and violent aggression is their modus operandi in how they face the world. Theirs is not to stop violent aggression, but to promote it. Nearly everything about Islamic logic is to promote aggression, and diametrically opposed to the Golden Rule of all other human beings. Islam stands as something apart from humanity, and this makes it inherently violent and murderous. Human freedoms demand the Golden Rule, Islam forbids it, which makes Islam inherently evil.

This is not to say there are no Muslims who observe the Golden Rule, but it is not because of their religion, rather the opposite, because they are not true Muslims.

If someone started shooting at me I believe I would be entitled to shoot back. That would be an appropriate response. So to apply the golden rule if I were to start shooting at someone I believe they would be within their rights to shoot back. That's an extension of the Golden Rule. I would treat him that way if he attacked me. He then has a right to treat me that way if I attack him.

That's an extension of the Golden Rule.

No it's not. "Do unto others as they do unto you" is the old 'eye for an eye' Muslim logic. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Golden Rule. They are not the same, idiot.

"I got the impression Miriam Rove was female based on the writing style. I could be wrong."

Not to mention the fact that "Miriam" is a female name - the equivalent of Mary

"Based on what I read from you, english is your second language." -- B, in reference to a DefenderofIslam post.

I dunno, B (and Susanp), I've grown rather fond of DoI's fractured English. Maybe it's the teacher in me, but I find deciphering his meaning to be sort of like working a crossword puzzle. Content, or lack thereof, aside, he seems to have his own private set of grammar/punctuation/spelling rules that are more or less consistent. For example, he apparently never learned how to use the indefinite articles "a" and "an" so uses "than" for both. At least he knows that a word is required (unlike Russians who often leave it, as well as the definite article "the," out altogether) although he obviously didn't quite master it completely. His rules for forming contractions appear to be to combine the words in more or less the right way - and then leave out the apostrophe, sort of like the way English users of French words leave out the diacritical marks. DoI also obviously uses a browser without an integrated spell checker, else he would not make so many spelling errors.

(Hint to DoI: Consider using Firefox as your browser. It has a spell checker and can be downloaded for free. You're on your own with the grammar, however. Oh, and how's that search for a bride going?)

Mariam Rove , when God led the Jews to the promised land, He ordered them to kill all that were living there, Check out Joshua and the walls of Jericho and the following chapters in the Old Testament. This was an order from God and He had His reasons. Actually this baffles me. It doesn't disrupt my Faith as a practicing Roman Catholic., but it is something I don't understand and should check it out further with a "Solid Roman Catholic Authority".

This is not to disparage the Jews in any way, the principal difference between Jews and Christians is that we, (Christians) recognized the Messiah when he came the first time. In the end times when Christ comes upon earth again then the Jews will recognize the Messiah. Fortunately we have the GOD!

Exactly, BT. The Golden Rule is fashioned around a positive concept, signaled by the conditional "would" which Jon and other abusers of the moral equivalence persist in not grasping.

However, although the GR is obviously intended to appeal to the better nature of man, by not dealing explicitly with the evil side of man it leaves a hole to be exploited by Jon et al. An unspoken corollary to the Golden Rule, assumed as a matter of course by Christians, involves restraint and could be worded along the lines "Likewise, do not do unto others that which you would not have done to you." Both "Do unto others..." and "Do not do unto others..." are needed.

If you want to define the Golden Rule very narrowly, fine. Who cares? The point is this. If deadly violence directed at me entitles me to use deadly violence in response then I think if I direct deadly violence towards someone they are entitle to use deadly violence in response to me. Do you agree or do you reject the principle of universality?

Jon said "If someone started shooting at me I believe I would be entitled to shoot back. That would be an appropriate response. So to apply the golden rule if I were to start shooting at someone I believe they would be within their rights to shoot back. That's an extension of the Golden Rule. I would treat him that way if he attacked me. He then has a right to treat me that way if I attack him."

If you truly believe this, then you should have no problems with Israel going after Hamas leaders after being attacked by their rockets.

But I know this isn't true since in the news media we see condemnation against Israel when they practice their "right" to self-defense. Oh.. wait that's right. We don't know they are acting in self defense because the news media hardly reports on the hundreds upon thousands of rockets that have hit Israel.

On a separate observation, I think you are loosely mixing the doctrines of Moral Equivalence and the Golden Rule in your defense of claims.

The Golden Rule is a personal moral doctrine espoused by Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Usually equated with the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Moral Equivalence came about in the late 19th and early 20th century as a means to deny that any one side has a hierarchy over any other sides. This is usually used in a political debate.

To say that nation states apply these doctrines is kind of baffling since they are either of a person nature (golden rule) or used in polictical debate (moral equivalency).

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would be an example of a nation-state doctrine that has been used by both the US and USSR in the past. Some others include Monroe, Truman, Eisenhower doctrine to name a few used by the US.

The people that where to be attacked where sadistic, brutal perpetrators of unbelievable cruelty and injustices. A concoction of the deprived bestiality seen many times on earth such as that of the Roman coliseum horrors , Nazi programs, Aztec sacrifice and mass orgies and rapes (hetero and home).

If deadly violence directed at me entitles me to use deadly violence in response then I think if I direct deadly violence towards someone they are entitle to use deadly violence in response to me. Do you agree or do you reject the principle of universality?

Sure. This is the basic principle of war. But it has nothing to do with the Golden Rule, as you claim. Islam is a war-doctrine from beginning to end, so I am not surprised by your line of reasoning. Which makes the "religion of peace" label on Islam ludicrous, 'deceit' taken to its utmost. I'm okay with that as long as you understand that we understand your full intentions. You speak for the enemy. No problem, we understand.

"B" defines the "secular Muslim" as:

Kind of like a Christian that calls himself a Christian but doesn't go to church. Observes some of the religious holidays, but maybe not all.

Then he goes on to explain:

There are many people who identify with their religion but don't practice it.

What B doesn't realize is that Islam is unique in two ways:

1) First of all, Islam is not a mere "religion" as we understand it, and as we appropriately designate Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and various polytheisms with that term. (Nor is Islam a mere ethical system like Confucianism or Taoism.) Islam is a totalitarian system encompassing everything in life: a Muslim belongs to a separate world from the world everyone else inhabits: that world is Islam -- not only apart from the real world, but in militant and hateful antagonism against it. (Some anthropologists and philosophers may try to argue that every group and even the belief systems of many individuals functions this way, of creating "sub-worlds" that are complete unto themselves: this may be true in a limited sense, but it would not persuasively counter-argue the singular degree to which Muslims cultivate their separate cosmion.)

2) Secondly, the nature of this world-unto-itself, Islam, demonstrates the ineptitude of "B"'s sincerely and naively glib comparison of Islam with other religions, in two ways:

a) through its sacred texts, the Koran and Hadiths, Tafsirs -- plus inseparable from them, its Fiqh (system of laws) -- Islam's primary function is a program of world conquest through all kinds of violence, including military assault where possible; and this function of world conquest is based in turn on two primary characteristics of Islam:

i) a fanatical hatred of non-Muslims (which is directly connected to its obverse -- a fanatical obsession with purity in following Islam)

ii) a fanatical obsession with eschatology (directly connected to its obverse -- a fanatical dissatisfaction with the world as it is, imperfect and "impure" when it is not dominated by Islam in preparation for the Last Days when ultimate eternal purification will occur).

b) through the words and deeds of Muslims in the news and in recent history, we can see such a disparity in the mountain of data coming out of the Muslim world (whether that world be "over there" or right here in the West into which Muslims have been immigrating by the millions over the past 50 years -- with each decade only increasing; and perversely, increasing even more post-911) when we compare that mountain of data of the outrageously hateful and violent, grotesque, ghoulish, alarming, lethal, fanatical, deranged, megalomaniac things Muslims have been saying and doing, to what the people of any other religion have been saying and doing, we see that all other religions have been capable of secularizing with success, while Muslims have a profound difficulty with secularizing.

Can we point to Muslims who seem sufficiently secularized? Yes, there exist Muslims who are ostensibly secularized. But there are two problems with their existence:

1) Even if we grant the genuineness of the ostensibly secular Muslims, they are obviously not having any salutary effect on the dangerous hostility of the anti-secular Muslims around the world -- indeed, the trend is that the anti-secular Muslims are getting worse and aggrandizing, while the secular Muslims are becoming weaker and dwindling.

2) The problem of Taqiyya remains insurmountable: while any one of us may have personal experiences of one or, at best, a handful of Muslim acquaintances or friends who seem to be secularized (and therefore seem to be trustworthy), this kind of personal anecdotal evidence suffers from two problems:

a) We could be wrong, for various reasons: our own sentimentality, or naivete, or need to feel there are good Muslims, could be deceived -- and that kind of sincerely misguided misjudgment could have disastrous consequences. (I have never known a non-Muslim who claims to know nice "moderate" Muslims personally who also admits that he has ever tried to probe those Muslims with a no-nonsense line of questioning involving tough questions: If any such Infidel did do so with any given "moderate" Muslim he knows, I suspect he would find the "inner radical" under the seemingly "moderate" surface.)

b) On a macro scale concerning what our Western societies have to do to protect themselves from Muslims, the problem becomes more complex and cannot proceed without considerable collateral damage against ostensibly innocent Muslims (whether they appear "secularized" or not) -- that "damage" involving a whole spectrum ranging from the indignity of extra suspicion, searches of property (including mosques) and persons, detainment, interrogations, and perhaps in the future, restrictions on immigration and deportation. The reason we have to do this is because if we have in place massive institutional acceptance of Muslims in our society (when we assume that masses of secular Muslims exist), how do we weed out the dangerous terrorists and terrorism enablers among them? Are we going to assume that every smiling, friendly, blue-jeans-wearing, ipod-listening Muslim is ipso facto harmless, and only direct our scrutiny at the fiercely bearded, glowering, kaffiyeh-wearing Muslims? That would not only be silly, but dangerously reckless, considering how assiduously fanatical those Muslims bent on mass-murdering us are, and what lengths they will go to to sow their terrorist plots against us.

[idiotarian drooled: "If someone started shooting at me I believe I would be entitled to shoot back. That would be an appropriate response."]

Well, that depends on who you're shooting "back" at, doesn't it? What this idiotarian advocates is gangsterism; which when justified for political ends is also terrorism. If police (or other lawful peacekeepers) lawfully shoot you for drawing a weapon or otherwise threatening deadly violence, then you are NOT entitled to shoot back. You are entitled to take a dirt nap; and no civil person will have a moments remorse for you.

Here endeth the lesson.

@H: That's all well and good; but "Secular Muslims" are still our allies. Robert and other anti-jihadists of good will support them.

They have a very informative website, if you care to learn.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

Try harder to remain civil.

In response to my argument of over 800 words, Kaddafi Delenda Est wrote:

That's all well and good; but "Secular Muslims" are still our allies. Robert and other anti-jihadists of good will support them.

They have a very informative website, if you care to learn.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

Try harder to remain civil.

There is no counter-argument there; nor does Kaddafi Delenda Est even bother to respond to even one of the many interlocking points of my argument. I cannot therefore take him seriously -- at least not until he does so.

Good points, Hesperado, in your long post assessing "secular Muslims". Can we manage this fight against Islamic Jihad without them? Can they be turned useful to our cause in this war against implementing Sharia in the West? I think so, if we are careful how we do this.

We have a unique historical event taking place, one which maybe never really happened before, that we let in millions of the enemy, with their whole extended families and religious clerics in tow, to come and settle deep within the countries of the West. Readers of JihadWatch know this is insanity on a civilizational, historical scale. But now that they are here, and even horrible events of their doing such as 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, southern Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, Moscow, southern Russian Islamic republics, Parisian riots in the banlieus, trans-Atlantic bombings like Pan Am 103 (and possibly more we aren't told about, like the flight from Brazil to Paris mid Atlantic blow up, France 330, or TWA 800, not to mention those that failed to explode), never ending riots and murders within Dar-al-Islam, etc, had not taught us a lesson. The list seems endless where we begin to forget. But if we did not learn from all this dismal history, my grim prediction is that it will continue. Islamic Jihad knows no borders, no human decency (raping women to turn them into suicide bombers, sending children and feeble minded adults strapped with bombs into the marketplace, etc.), and it never rests…. hasn't rested for 1400 years of Jihad. So having imported this malicious murderous cult members into our midst poses a special problem in history. We 'invaded' ourselves with them. Net net, we are facing one vicious enemy already here, and they're not even a state!

This threat from Islamic Jihad, and its attendant Sharia, is now deep within the lands of the Free West. What to do? The only viable solution I can see, besides seriously limiting immigration from Islamic states, is to cultivate those who (secretly) are already disaffected with Islam. And I think the place to find them is amongst those who had, because of their exposure to Western ideals and ideas, credibly "secularized". I must emphasize 'credibly' because of the taqiyya doctrine prevalent amongst Muslims. The most sensible start to this process is to carefully filter (yes, I know, it means 'profiling') at the gate who we let in. Then, from those already here, deportation of trouble makers, including their extended families and imams. Then carefully monitor all their activities at the mosque, which for them is not a religious place of service as understood by other religions, but a beach head 'command center' for planning their next move against the infidels. And this is where the "secularized" Muslims are potentially most helpful. No need to not use available resources if we can screen them for credibility. We did this with disaffected Communists during the Cold War, we can do it again. Of course, we never imported millions of fanatical Communists into the West back in those nostalgic days! So this is truly something different. But I think it can be done, and we should use the resources already available to us.

We are at war. They declared war on us. So we must fight with all available resources, hold back any emotional bitterness we may have against the enemy, and fight them on all fronts. Remember, they are not a state, so we are fighting a constantly moving target, which is a difficult thing to do. Their 7th century bandit Warlord founder said "war is deceit". Well, what war isn't? Is it devious to employ those who are falling out of Islam? Not in my opinion, I think it is smart strategizing. But like handling snakes, one must be very very cautious in how it is done. We need 'filters' to treat any Islamic ally same as if we were dealing with member of a Fifth Column, or enemy spies, which potentially is what they are, no matter how sincere. It's in their 'religion'. But if we do this properly, we all win, even the "secularized" Muslims who had rebelled against the onerous tenets of their Total-Belief-System. All human beings have a natural right to freedom, even Muslims. In fact, they will be the first ones to thank us for helping primitive Islam die the natural death it is long overdue.

Hesp, I admire your ability of logic and insight, but can you see what I mean?

When Bill Clinton just opined about the Muslims that died on 9/11, he was correct...the 19 hijackers were Muslims ,so YES Bill,Muslims died that day and the Mega Mosque is the Victory Mosque you exalt for building Bridges.

The problem is that the Jihadist already mined the Bridges to blow-up once the unbelievers try to cross them.
Islam wants people to enter a Mosque for conversions,if not get the hell out you filthy godless pig sinner.

Gravenimage, good responses to Jon, I also want to do that but I address myself to you because Hesperado advised to speak preferably about the troll in 3rd person.

In post of 23 sept, 10.33. Jon took Robert to task about his own positions and actions and those of America. I think Jon was creating a diversion here with Tu Quoque, trying to get Muslims off the hook. If we conflate Robert with the government of America there also was Ad Hominem, also meant to take the heat off of Muslims.

I would like to say that this kind of reasoning does not acquit or exonerate Muslims and their responsibilities much. It's only evasive, it does not address the problems and real controversy between Islam & Democracy. Jon is basically a stopper of dialoque and of possible democratic, peaceful, highly beneficial solutions to this controversy after long dialoque.

Great answers to Jon, BT! I like your style, like to think I am similar to you.

I here respond to Jon via you, to be able to speak about him in 3rd person as Hesperado recommended.

Jon said:
"an elementary moral truism; Your first priority should be the actions you are responsible for and can control. It us useless and unhelpful to focus on the crimes of others that aren't listening to you and you can't control. But it does make you feel good. So we should focus first on US crimes, and that would be true if US crimes were the lesser crimes. Turns out they aren't, but if they were I would still decry them." "The failure is yours. This is elementary moral reasoning."

"Another elementary moral principle is the principle of universality, which says that we must apply the same standards to ourselves that we demand of others."

I say no to the first "moral truism or principle" but wholeheartedly yes to the second.

And they contradict.

The first so-called truism shows this oft-appearing Political-Correct Multicultural and also culture-relativist attitude;

America, on the pretext that it is amenable to change, can be influenced, whereas the Muslims cannot, is then judged by a much higher standard than the Muslims confronting them.

Jon often violates the second moral principle. Or he paints facts and situations in a way that makes the Western, Democratic side at least as culpable as the Muslim side. Which I and I think most posters and most experts on the matter would disagree with, with a lot of evidence and logic on our side.

I told Jon before; before he even applies the same standards to behavior of comparative peoples, if he wants to be honest and just, he should make absolutely sure that he considers both sides equally sane adult changeable humans.

Or conversely that he considers both sides equally faulty, frail, primitive, crazy, childish unchangeable animals, so to speak.

His argument that we should try the change our own side first because that's where we have influence only comes after first applying strictly equal standards for both sides, first in accountability, then in describing the controversy, the facts and the situation.

He uses freedom of speech against his own government if he lives in the USA. And his first priority should be in preserving that, hence his first priority should be in supporting those governments who support this best, even if in war sometimes, against those who oppress freedom of speech, like most regimes in Islamic countries, like many interpreters of Islam's most guiding texts.

Now? He is just using freedom of speech with the intention of helping those who would take it away from those he talks to so free. He practises sheer sinister hypocrisy, which means he is bad. Or if he's doing it ignorantly, it means there's a glaring flaw in his reasoning.

And I say this not to spite him, but as part of my effort to defend and promote worldwide freedom of speech. That should be his higher priority too if he is so moral as he claims he is.

Come to think of it, so often we have heard in the media and from people we argued with; "We are for freedom of speech and freedom of religion".

But they only meant this to be valid for the place where they live, not the whole world!

In a way, we could answer them now; You are only for partial freedom of speech and partial freedom of religion. You want those 2 freedoms only in particular places, not worldwide!"

And it means that the people who profit from the opposites of these 2 freedoms, namely propaganda&censorship and supremacy of one religion, namely the Muslims, are still equal in the countries that have these 2 freedoms to a high degree. The followers of other faiths/ lifeconvictions thus have themselves a bad deal; in their countries all are equal, but in Islamic countries, their co-religionists are heavily disadvantaged compared to the favored Muslims. And then the Muslims accuse us of fear and hatred when we point this out!

For a visitor out of space, actually for God Himself, this MUST look unjust, ironic, stupid. For if God exists, He must be ultimately highly just, logical and wise.

Battle of Tours,

You asked:

Can we manage this fight against Islamic Jihad without them [secular Muslims]? Can they be turned useful to our cause in this war against implementing Sharia in the West?

My post to which you were responding made a case for answering "no", and I don't think you really counter-argued my argument. You presented an argument in defense of your answer "yes" to your questions, without specifically addressing the reasons why I would say "no" -- reasons present in my post to which you were responding.

Indeed, the first paragraph of your argument marshals data that leads me to say "no":

...we let in millions of the enemy, with their whole extended families and religious clerics in tow, to come and settle deep within the countries of the West. Readers of JihadWatch know this is insanity on a civilizational, historical scale.

And of course you add to this:

horrible events of their doing such as 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, southern Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, Moscow, southern Russian Islamic republics, Parisian riots in the banlieus, trans-Atlantic bombings like Pan Am 103 (and possibly more we aren't told about, like the flight from Brazil to Paris mid Atlantic blow up, France 330, or TWA 800, not to mention those that failed to explode), never ending riots and murders within Dar-al-Islam, etc...

The above is a very brief summary of part of the data that in my estimation should lead a person to say "no". The other part involves my articulation in my argument of the problems of taqiyya.

Where you go with this data seems to be to a tentative conclusion of fatalistic acceptance of this massive intrusion of the enemy into our societies:

But now that they are here, and even , had not taught us a lesson... But if we did not learn from all this dismal history, my grim prediction is that it will continue... So having imported this malicious murderous cult members into our midst poses a special problem in history.

At that juncture you ask:

What to do?

And answer:

The only viable solution I can see, besides seriously limiting immigration from Islamic states, is to cultivate those who (secretly) are already disaffected with Islam."

Why is this the only viable solution? Why do you not mention total deportation? You do mention deportation later, but the deportation you mention is limited to the "troublemakers". I already refuted such a notion in my post to which you are responding; but you did not counter-argue.

You go on:

And I think the place to find them is amongst those who had, because of their exposure to Western ideals and ideas, credibly "secularized". I must emphasize 'credibly' because of the taqiyya doctrine prevalent amongst Muslims.

I articulated at some length in my post to which you are responding the problems taqiyya pose, rendering "credibility" impossible on a scale of millions. The danger of terror plots using WMDs makes this an exigent concern. Given the gravity and horror of such plots, it would be dangerously reckless of us to trust any Muslims. Of course, given the dominance of PC MC in our societies, we will continue to do so, and untold numbers of us will have to die because of it; but I don't expect Jihad Watchers to effectively defend such madness even if in a roundabout way they think they are seeking an educated solution to the problem.

Of the secular Muslims you think we can use in our defense against Muslims, you wrote:

No need to not use available resources if we can screen them for credibility. We did this with disaffected Communists during the Cold War, we can do it again.

Muslims are not analogous to Communist or Fascist ideologues, in the sense that fanatical devotion to the cause and solidarity among Muslims is astronomically stronger and deadlier. I have argued before about the inappropriateness of these analogies. These modern ideologies are cobbled-together systems with no history, no tradition, only infants in the long perspective of history: Communism was less than a century old before it died; Nazism and Fascism but a few decades at best. For all the mass rallies Hitler could muster, he was never able to muster what Muslims do every year (and which they have been doing for centuries): the Hajj -- a spectacle of mass fanaticism a thousand times more terrifying than anything Communists or Nazis or Fascists could generate. That's just one example out of thousands one could adduce of the contrast. For that reason, millions of people in the Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc Eastern Europe wanted to escape that inhuman society, and many tried to escape, and many were killed trying. Contrast that to what we see of the Muslim diaspora around the world and increasingly immigrating into the West. How many of them are trying to escape Islam? Instead of escaping Islam, they bring Islam with them: it's part of their baggage.

I'm not saying that in our present unfortunate situation of PC MC and therefore of suffering the presence of Muslims in our society, our intelligence services should not try to use "secular Muslims" in sting operations. I would only counsel our intelligence services to surveil them at all times and never trust them, to make sure any one of them is not a triple agent who would explode when he or she has the opportunity (as indeed happened with one supposedly moderate Muslim who was helping the CIA in Afghanistan a few months ago, as reported here at JW). But using a handful of secular Muslims this way is different from countenancing their presence in our societies, and should not be used as an argument to defend their inevitable stay here, nor the irrational hope that more and more Muslims will "defect". So I don't mind using Muslims in a limited way; but not in terms of some grand project as you seem to envision.

Of course, we never imported millions of fanatical Communists into the West back in those nostalgic days!

There did not exist millions of fanatical Communists; it was indeed a minority of extremists -- deadly extremists, to be sure, but not capable of converting the masses, only of forcing them by imprisoning them in a totalitarian system. With Muslims, we have millions who actually fervently believe in their totalitarianism. With the exception of a tiny minority, Muslims voluntarily imprison themselves: they love their slavery and defend it passionately. Islam is unique that way, and there is no comparison with any other system on earth now, or throughout all history. All comparisons people anxiously seek by which to explain this unique horror called Islam are ways to assuage our deep misgivings about what that horror means for us, and what we will have to do to manage it, and how we must feel with regard to these hordes. Anxiously, we seek ways to explain, and thereby to mitigate, this unique monstrosity called Islam. There is no comparison. Islam is what it is. Let's not reach for "it's like Communism" or "it's like Nazism" or "it's like a cult" or any number of other analogies. Let's just deal with what Islam presents and stop trying to force a square into a circle. The shape of Islam is a hideously unique thing. There is no mold for it. It sprang into the world like a monster abortion, unlike any other living thing. Anyone who continues to call themselves a "Muslim" -- no matter what flavor they want to call it or what spin they try to put on it -- cannot escape the fact that they are thereby at the very least countenancing and enabling this monstrosity and all its myriad monstrous tentacles. How can such a person be trusted? He or she would have to be either strangely schizophrenic, or lying to us. There is no third alternative. And neither one is good timber upon which to build a trustworthy alliance (except under very limited and gingerly circumstances).

I'm not saying that in our present unfortunate situation of PC MC and therefore of suffering the presence of Muslims in our society, our intelligence services should not try to use "secular Muslims" in sting operations. I would only counsel our intelligence services to surveil them at all times and never trust them, to make sure any one of them is not a triple agent who would explode when he or she has the opportunity (as indeed happened with one supposedly moderate Muslim who was helping the CIA in Afghanistan a few months ago, as reported here at JW). But using a handful of secular Muslims this way is different from countenancing their presence in our societies, and should not be used as an argument to defend their inevitable stay here, nor the irrational hope that more and more Muslims will "defect". So I don't mind using Muslims in a limited way; but not in terms of some grand project as you seem to envision. (my bold)

I think this (in bold) is the crux of differences in our views. I do think it is possible to effect more "defectors" from Islam, while you do not think this is viable. It really comes down to "secularism" vs. religious "fanaticism", of which Muslims are particularly prone to this fanaticism. Secular believing citizens are less prone to commit mass murder than religious fanatics, as daily news amply shows. So my hope, if such can be hoped for, is to secularize more Muslims living amongst us. This always comes down to education, to help them understand how toxic is their religion fundamentally, and how primitively violent. These are the "converts" to secularism we seek. Can this happen? Your opinion is that it cannot, at least not in any significant numbers out of the millions who had come to live here. But my counter is even if just a handful (who would be viewed in their secularization as apostates, with serious threats to their lives by their own), then these are the people who can be enlisted to work with us in our counter-jihad cause. I know this is a difficult thing to do, since it is much easier to simply write them off as a lost cause, but difficulty in war is to be expected. Wars try us, our resolve, and our ability. It also tests our humanness, that we do not regress down to the enemy's cruelties and barbarism. Hence, we must at least take 'measured' steps to combat the enemy on our own terms, to "divide and conquer" them in any way we can; which is my idea. Of course, if that fails, then we default to your idea, which is to simply deport the lot of them.

Overall, I must agree with your "The shape of Islam is a hideously unique thing. There is no mold for it. It sprang into the world like a monster abortion, unlike any other living thing." Islam is like no other cult or political ideology, it is truly in a class by itself, a class that is so unbelievably vile that most shy away from confronting it. If anyone calls themselves a "Muslim" they are part of that monstrous class. Fear is what drives Islam, and those who are most fearful gravitate to its total-control mechanism for refuge. Fight the Fear, and maybe we can turn this thing around, where Islam loses its mental lock on the slaves of Allah.

My goal, and I suspect the same of all serious strategists in the war against Jihad, is to turn a civilizational corner here, by liberating the billion plus masses who are willingly, or unwillingly, enslaved by this terrible ideology, and set the world on a new path towards realizing a lasting real peace. Anything less than this goal leaves us where we started, and even if we destroy Islam's power, it will only be a temporary victory. To really win this war, you must destroy the ideological lock this vile ideology has on its billion 'true believers'. To "secularize" them is the first measured step in that direction. And to do that, we must enlist the help of those who already left that evil creed.

My post to which you were responding made a case for answering "no", and I don't think you really counter-argued my argument. You presented an argument in defense of your answer "yes" to your questions, without specifically addressing the reasons why I would say "no" -- reasons present in my post to which you were responding.

This was preceded by your earlier post (in response to B) where you said:

Can we point to Muslims who seem sufficiently secularized? Yes, there exist Muslims who are ostensibly secularized. But there are two problems with their existence:

And then you list a series of "no" answers to prove secularized Muslims are unreliable potential allies in the fight against Jihad. Understandably, they are. But why are they? Who said so?

I see it differently because I will not step into the trap laid by Muslims. They have painted themselves as formidable, beyond criticism, unstoppable, untouchable (no-go areas), beyond logical reason because of the firmness of their belief, morally superior, massive (over a billion practicing Islam around the world), they can raise thousands in murderous riots in a heartbeat, they're everywhere (so we cannot escape them), they have 1400 years of 'success' in their world Jihad, etc. This is how they have painted themselves to us, to sow "terror" in our hearts, to not even think of resisting them. This is their self-professed bravado to which we are supposed to bow in despair. I don't believe them, anymore than I believed Baghdad Bob during the American-Allied invasion of Iraq. They lie, boldface liars. And to believe what they say is to fall into the traps of their deceits.

I don't believe Islam is so formidable, so untouchable. I think, rather, it is fragile, in fact it is dying. So they put on this bold face of bravado to scare us, which for some becomes casus belli for evicting them wholesale from our countries. This is how I see your responses to Islamic bellicoseness, all your "noes". They want you to fear them, even though they are no where as formidable as they have painted themselves to be. It's bullshit. Islam is terrified of us, we are so much more powerful and together than they are; we can self-examine critically, even argue the opposition, something they cannot do. People within Islam, especially those who are sick of it, probably know it's bullshit. They would rather have an avenue to get out. Their imams lie to them, their political dictators lie to them, and their press lies to them. How much can a human being take of all these lies? That's the real Islam. And that's why I say we cultivate those who are eager and ready to "secularize", because they can become the most powerful weapon against those Islamic lies. Give people a chance to get out, give them protection and legal help from the fatwa "death threats" (to apostates), and show them that they can be rid of this toxic ideology in their lives, to be free human beings like the rest of the planet desires. Islam is not so scary. And if I thought it was, I would agree with you. (Deport them all!) But I don't think so.

I would make alliance with those who could help us topple Islamic Jihad not just to keep our countries safe from this loathsome ideology, but to make good citizens of those who had been rescued from Islam. Everything about Islam stinks, it's absolutely unconscionable, and is against all human principles of decency and liberty. Let's put it down, it's begging to be put down. That's where my "yes" answers come from.

I hope I answered your "yes" or "no" question above, Hesp.

BT, well said, I liked that.

Let us be FOR something Muslims are against. Let us paint possible change of Muslims not primarily of them giving up something, but primarily something they gain extra/ As with education, that they gained extra, above their upbringing as Muslims.

We don't want to demote them from Islam, we want them to promote them to Democracy-loyalists, from whence their own and the world's possibilities and promises are endless.

A final observation: The co-monitor of the subject event was Dave Zirin of ESPN.

This dhimmi tool is a freshly minted anti-Semite. Writing for the Nation this summer, Zirin justified the decision of the Turkish U-19 soccer team to boycott a match against Israel. He described the Gaza flotilla raid as an act of state terror committed by the Israeli government and proposed a boycott of Israel.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/flotilla-fallout-are-teams-right-refuse-play-israel

It appears this is no accident but a product of his devotion to the infamous historical revisionism of Howard Zinn. You can read more about his uniquely noxious brand of "social activism" here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Zirin

Clearly another "useful idiot" for jihadism (with an ESPN megaphone) who bears watching.

We don't want to demote them from Islam, we want them to promote them to Democracy-loyalists, from whence their own and the world's possibilities and promises are endless.

Exactly right, demsci. We must treat this as a positive, and not give into their negatives. They are the ones who through their ugly and violent self-representation have created the misnomer "Islamophobia", because they want us to be afraid of them. This is prime example of playing 'victimhood' while scaring the infidels. Islam is masterful at duplicity. Well, we call their bluff. We are not afraid. Rather, we understand them.

There are no "Islamophobes", but they want us to believe there should be. These people really need psychological help, their ugly 'religion' robbed them of all human dignity. The tide will turn when they finally realize they had been lied to, big time, and turn to 'secularization' in their personal lives. We shouldn't discourage that, rather give them a "Yes! You can" do this. Spencer's "5 points" listed atop is a step in the right direction.

[Robert wrote: "the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city"]

Actually, Nyumburu (Swahili for "Freedom House") Cultural Center is not IN the city of College Park but rather ON the main campus.

It's a State facility (financed by Maryland taxpayers) founded explicitly "for black social, cultural and intellectual interaction."
http://www.nyumburu.umd.edu/

Why Maryland State taxpayers are financing these serial taqiyya events remains a mystery.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter