Election jihad: 16 killed in Pakistan election day jihad bomings

“The violence was a continuation of what has been a brutal election season with more than 130 people killed in bombings and shootings.”

“16 killed in Pakistan election-day bombings,” by Atif Raza for the Associated Press, May 11 (thanks to Kenneth):

ISLAMABAD “” Defying the danger of militant attacks, Pakistanis streamed to the polls Saturday for a historic vote pitting a former cricket star against a two-time prime minister and an unpopular incumbent. But attacks that killed 16 people and wounded dozens more underlined the risks many people took just casting their ballots.

The violence was a continuation of what has been a brutal election season with more than 130 people killed in bombings and shootings. Some are calling this one of the deadliest votes in the country’s history….

Twin blasts in the port city of Karachi targeted the political offices of the Awami National Party, one of three secular liberal parties that have been targeted by Taliban militants during the run-up to the election, said police officer Shabir Hussain. Nine people died in the attack and 30 were wounded.

In the northwestern city of Peshawar a bomb exploded outside a polling station, killing at least one person and wounding 10 others, said police officer Mukhtiar Khan.

In the southwestern Baluchistan province where separatists oppose the election, gunmen killed two people outside a polling station in the town of Sorab, police official Mohammed Yousuf said.

Also in Baluchistan, a shootout between supporters of two candidates in the town of Chaman ended with four people dead, said Ismail Ibrahim, a government official.

The threats are such that the government has deployed an estimated 600,000 security personnel across the country to protect polling sites and voters. But many Pakistanis still seemed determined to cast their ballots….

On the eve of the historic vote Pakistan expelled the New York Times correspondent, Declan Walsh.

The newspaper said in an article published on its website Friday that their longtime foreign correspondent was handed a two-sentence letter accusing him of unspecified “undesirable activities” and ordering him to leave….

After all he has done for them.

Pakistan's new Islamic supremacist prime minister "soft on Islamic extremism and won't crack down on militants"
New English-language jihadi publication calls on Muslims to hack US drones
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

    AMERICANA who also posts as MUXLIM suddenly appeared here on JW in the last several weeks. I strongly believe *IT* to be a paid troll, *Paid* for each post IT makes. I also believe IT is a Muslim, or Muslim sympathizer, or at least an infiltrator to sow seeds of dissent, distraction and division. I have observed IT engage and enrage many regular posters here, in a short period of time, with banal counter-intuitive arguments. IT has annoyed “Champ”, “George”, “Miriam Rove” and many others. In an argument with Champ IT claimed to be a “Female”, which is why I call “IT” IT as IT’s writing style is distinctly masculine in nature.

    It is remarkable the amount of drivel IT has produced in a few short weeks and the number of posters IT has offended; and the actual number of IT’s posts is far beyond normal. IT claims to be from the Boston area but with “strong” British connections and British experience (now enhanced to include many international connections and influential family and other connections). IT is constantly morphing and Chameleon- like adopting and adapting to and with IT’s interactions here to become all things to all entities. The truth matters little to IT. IT salts its nonsense with half-truths and dis-information to elicit controversy, thus occasioning responses it can in turn, respond to in an ever-burgeoning morass of garbage. *BUT* IT is paid for each of these so the more we engage IT, the more it profits.

    IT tries to position itself as supporting the counter-jihad position but has a host of non-viable platforms, which clearly demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic tenets of Islam or it is just deliberate obfuscation. IT’s basic argument is that Islam needs to self-reform and establish an international forum of “moderate” Mullahs to call for reform. Fat chance that. The quintessential non-starter.

    IT writes long puerile sections while trying to pretend IT is in agreement. IT”s intent is to draw posters into endless debate about issues that have no traction thus diminishing the value and information in the article thread. All Classic communist agitate/propaganda techniques.

    Ignore IT.

    Don’t waste your time engaging IT in any way. Trolls are paid for EACH post. This is why they begin arguments. The more the merrier, from their perspective. If there is no engagement, they move on eventually. Persona is difficult to camouflage. I will keep an eye for additional new monikers.

    Click here http://goo.gl/lwSsI for the profile, behaviour and tactics of a PAID TROLL.

    Max.

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

  2. says

    I posted this on another thread about the unrest in Sudan where the imams are asking the populace to fight jihad against the Muslim rebels. As I’ve asked before, are there legitimate jihads vs. illegitimate jihads and is this Sudan jihad an instance of “legitimate” jihad in protection of the country and her citizens? And if so, would asking the populace to wage jihad against these terrorists disrupting voting in Pakistan be worthwhile or would it cause a further reduction in their country’s peace and stability? If Pakistan has deployed 600,000 security personnel around the country, I wonder how many security personnel coverage per polling site? Would you feel secure if it was just one person? I wouldn’t!

    Legitimate jihad to protect the citizenry and the nation >>>May 10, 2013 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan’s High Committee for Mobilisation and Alert has held a meeting with mosque imams to discuss the implications of the recent attacks in South and North Kordofan states by the rebel Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) and to call for jihad (holy war).

    The threats are such that the government has deployed an estimated 600,000 security personnel across the country to protect polling sites and voters. But many Pakistanis still seemed determined to cast their ballots….

  3. says

    You’re refusing to discuss the question because I posed it before, Buraq, and I was told I was an idiot for suggesting there have been instances where jihad is similar (if not identical) to our wars in the West. I was told unequivocally there has never been any such “legitimate jihad,” that I had to point to such in the history books that qualifies. As far as I’m concerned, this qualifies as “legitimate jihad/war” since it’s in defence of their homes and families.

    I’ve said in previous threads that I believed ‘jihad’ is sometimes the equivalent of OUR western term, ‘war.’ This would seem to be one of those times. I want to know if other people feel that jihad can be both an inflammatory term that’s used appropriately in instances where an Islamist group is imposing itself and Muslim rule over an unwilling populace vs. this instance, where a populace is being encouraged to fight back against a Muslim aggressor force.

  4. says

    ”ISLAMABAD ” Defying the danger of militant attacks, Pakistanis streamed to the polls Saturday for a historic vote pitting a former cricket star against a two-time prime minister and an unpopular incumbent.”

    As if Imran Khan is not himself a militant, who wants full on sharia.

    Wicked of me, no doubt, but I can’t muster much indignation over Pakistan, and muslims murdering other muslims; what else is new ?

    More intriguing, for me, is:

    ”On the eve of the historic vote Pakistan expelled the New York Times correspondent, Declan Walsh.

    The newspaper said in an article published on its website Friday that their longtime foreign correspondent was handed a two-sentence letter accusing him of unspecified “undesirable activities” and ordering him to leave….”

    Isn’t this Walsh one of these PC/MC useful idiots/tools who consistently voices support/excuses for islam, sharia, jihad ?

    What **can** he have done to upset them ?

  5. says

    @Americana wrote.

    “I’ve said in previous threads that I believed ‘jihad’
    is sometimes the equivalent of OUR western term,
    ‘war.’ This would seem to be one of those times. I
    want to know if other people feel that jihad can
    be both an inflammatory term that’s used
    appropriately in instances where an Islamic
    group is imposing itself and Muslim rule over an
    unwilling populace vs. this instance, where a
    populace is being encouraged to fight back
    against a Muslim aggressor force.”

    I thought JIHAD was an inner- struggle, and pumping irons and walking our kids to school??

    So you agree that jihad is war.

    Let’s look at instances in history where Jihad has been used to as a battle cry to subjugate and terrorise nations, and also used to invade and islamically colonise and convert whole nations.

    1. In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John
    Adams went to London to negotiate with
    Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji
    Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman
    Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the
    ground of the pretensions to make war upon
    nations who had done them no injury”, the
    ambassador replied:

    “It was written in their Koran, that all
    nations which had not acknowledged
    the Prophet were sinners, whom it was
    the right and duty of the faithful to
    plunder and enslave; and that every
    mussulman who was slain in this
    warfare was sure to go to paradise. He
    said, also, that the man who was the
    first to board a vessel had one slave over
    and above his share, and that when
    they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s
    ship, every sailor held a dagger in each
    hand and a third in his mouth; which
    usually struck such terror into the foe
    that they cried out for quarter at once.
    [19]”

    On Jefferson’s
    inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf
    Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli,
    demanded $225,000 from the new
    administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues
    totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his
    long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson
    refused the demand. Consequently, on May
    10, 1801, the Pasha declared a “JIHAD” on the
    U.S., not through any formal written
    documents but in the customary Barbary
    manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front
    of the U.S. Consulate.[23] Algiers and Tunis
    did not follow their ally in Tripoli.”

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

  6. says

    2. By Amnah Khalid
    Political Science researcher
    International Islamic University,Malaysia
    “–
    Introduction
    In contemporary time, jihad is often
    understood as the violent process of waging
    war against non-Muslims. Muslims themselves
    have promoted it as a form of cleasing of
    external influences from the Islamic personality
    at an individual level. However, historically in
    West Africa, jihad was used as a pattern of
    Islamization to eradicate paganism and African
    culture to homogenize society as a whole to
    become a part of the Islamic Ummah.
    Islamization as a process occurred in every age
    and time through revivalist movements that
    challenged particular order. Knowledge and
    Islamization in relation to society is understood
    as the transformation of the public sphere
    in terms of mass distribution of Islamic symbols
    and the increase of political representation of
    Islam. In other words, it is the contention of
    purporting an Islamic world view by
    introducing Islamic values and method into
    educational institutions, science and politics.

    http://247ureports.com/shehu-usman-dan-fodio-and-islamization-of-hausas-through-jihad/

    What were the customs and practises that led
    to Jihad and Islamization of the region?
    From Ibn Battuta’s account of African native
    culture it can be deciphered that it was
    tribal.African polytheism involved human
    sacrifice and the use of human organs to
    make charms andamulets.Paganism
    dominated the supernatural forces that
    reigned on earth, sky, forest and water.They
    derive their genealogy from the the maternal
    uncle and neither does a man pass on
    hisinheritance to his sons but to the sons of
    his sister.The free mixing of genders in which
    men didnot experience jealousy and women
    continued to have friends and companions
    after marriage.Women were not veiled and not
    modest in the presence of men inspite of their
    perseverance in prayer and would not even in
    ramadan cover up.

  7. says

    Jihad? Here’s jihad…

    Noble Qur’an:2:190 Footnote: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”

    Any questions, or will that do?

  8. says

    The threats are such that the government has deployed an estimated 600,000 security personnel across the country to protect polling sites and voters.

    The US is much more efficient…Here, two members of the New Black Panthers and a baton, guarded our polling places and no one was killed…Eric Holder rewarded them for doing such a fine job…

  9. says

    … one of three secular liberal parties that have been targeted by Taliban militants during the run-up to the election…

    The attacks are of course meant to influence the outcome of the election. But who are we to criticize the Moslem democratic process? This is how they do it, and multiculturalism dictates that we respect their dyed in the wool tradition.

    Further, the administration in Washington covered up the Benghazi episode to influence the outcome of the 2012 presidential election here. The cover up of the cover up held until safely after the election was won, so it was a job well done. And, as noted by many, it was only incompetence (refusing to increase security, declining to send help, sending a (therefore unassailable) negress to keep the lie in place until after the election, etc.), and incompetence is not a high crime or misdemeanor, so what’s the big deal.

    Our election chicanery is only more indirect and more civilized than theirs.

    And I know what you’re thinking: it’s only a coincidence that the murders (and anal rape) last 9/11 was perpetrated by Moslems. We can be confident that they didn’t give a damn about the presidential election any more than they were motivated by the “anti-Islam” video featuring the Holy Prophet Mohammed.

    Mass murder, and more the threat of mass murder, is a natural component of Moslem democracy. Let’s respect that.

  10. says

    Muslims are not likely to wage an actual military jihad against real Muslim jihadists…they are both on the same team…there might be some discussion as to the level of Muslim violence used in the jihad…but good jihadists vs bad jihadists….ha….not going to happen….you might see Sunni vs Shi’ite or something similar, but that’s been going on for a long time…it is interesting to note that the Muslims are actually worried about the other Muslims….some Muslims appear to be accusing the other Muslims to being ‘insufficiently Muslim” on one hand and accusing other Muslims of being “too much Muslim”on the other hand by drawing too much attention to Islam….As Muslims scramble to cover their violence while at the same time promoting it……I sit back, observe, and laugh at the insanity called Islam….

  11. says

    “But we stand to gain an awful lot if any such internecine jihads enable the better Muslim groups to win across Eurasia and the East.”
    ONCE AGAIN Americana speaks nonsense. “Better” muslim groups? Which ones? Which is better? HAMAS? FATAH? MB? THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Either a group is for ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW WHICH IS AGAINST ALL THAT IS FREEDOM or they are against it, and are ruled APOSTATES AND INFIDELS. This is the lie Americana keep repeating thickly, and ignores any objection!!! UGH.

    “. If no Muslim group is more preferable than another Muslim group, then why wrangle over this issue of jihad at all? The West could simply gradually opt for isolationistism, problem solved.”
    Yes, if all muslim groups are for sharia law, why understand the reason and methods of of Jihad? We just wave our magic isolationist wand and problem solved! TADA!

    “I also pray that the “good guys” win from among those factions.”
    As I said, there is no “good guys”. As Spencer has said “moderite” Islam is a magic unicorn.

    Americana will complain I’m misrepresenting him in 3.. 2..

  12. says

    Foolster —- Giving all Muslims the label of XXXXXXXXX extremist is ridiculous. They may have great uniformity in their religion, but how they exercise their religion has a great deal to do w/their immediate environment, their family and friends. Read the Baghdad Blogger’s postings leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the immediate aftermath when he decided he needed to flee Baghdad, actually Iraq entirely, because he stated very plainly his loathing of the Muslim extremist militias.

    http://www.thebaghdadblog.com/

    And in his new post at The Guardian (a U.K. newspaper):

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/04/iraq.comment
    ___________________________________________________________________

    grievousimage —– I’m changing your handle to “grievous” because you sooooo consistently deliberately falsify and alter my words. You take grievous liberties in your analysis and your recasting of my comments. As someone who claims to be the wife of a **supposed** journalist you’ve got an extremely flexible interpretation of journalistic integrity and no capability whatsoever to stick to debating someone’s de facto statements. I’m only going to rebutt a couple of your most egregiously superimpositions…. The others should also be obvious.

    (ME) And if so, would asking the populace to wage jihad against these terrorists disrupting voting in Pakistan be worthwhile or would it cause a ((FURTHER REDUCTION)) in their country’s peace and stability?
    ……………………………….

    Pretty clearly I put a **qualifier** in there that would indicate there’s LIMITED/NONE peace and stability depending on **where** you are in Pakistan… The qualifier was “FURTHER REDUCTION in their country’s peace and stability.” So what does little miss grievousimage decide to do w/that sentence (speechwriter to Presidents she is not!)? She says there is NO PEACE AND STABILITY in Pakistan whatsoever.. True, there is no “peace and stability” as we Americans understand those terms, it’s all relative. But if these imams are asking the populace to fight against an incoming horde of Muslim jihadists in their region, then I’d say the imams have a point about these people guaranteeing what little peace and stability they do have.

    (GRIEVOUSIMAGE)) There is no “peace and stability” in Pakistan. Pakistan is an Islamic hell hole. As the last vestiges of the (only partially civilizing) influences of British law there fade, this will become even more marked.

    And more again:

    (ME) As far as I’m concerned, this qualifies as “legitimate jihad/war” since it’s in defence of their homes and families.
    ……………………………….

    One again, littlemissgrievousimage decides to totally deconstruct and reconstruct the very plainly stated point which is that there is some jihad practiced that is akin to our World Wars. These jihads are undertaken in defense of family and country against outright invaders. These particular villages aren’t pouring out of their country’s borders to attack infidels. They’re preparing to wage war ON THEIR HOME TURF against fellow Muslims of an opposite and antagonistic extremist persuasion. Fighting that if you and your **supposed** journalist husband had to do, I’m sure you’d change your appreciation for the range of meaning in the term “jihad.”

    (GRIEVOUSIMAGE) This is the same thing that Jihadists say when they are murdering Americans, Brits, Israelis, other Infidels, and *each other*. It is a meaningless trope of “defensive” Jihad, and applies to every occasion in the absence of a Caliphate and its prerogative for “legitimately” declaring offensive Jihad.

  13. says

    grievousimage —- Your comprehension is, once again, sub-par if not COMPLETELY OFF the CHARTS wrong. WHERE PRECISELY did I say anal rape wasn’t an atrocity??? NOWHERE. I didn’t imply anything about it other than indicating it was the nastiest, cruelest thing that can be done at such a time. Please, get your supposed journalist hubby to write his interpretation of my remarks on this thread. I dare you. It’ll be interesting to see if he goes off the reservation in the interest of journalistic integrity.

    There have already been multiple instances where defilement of the bodies of American servicemen and women have been used for bragging rights in the Middle East’s conflicts. You think they don’t have any respect for having killed an American Ambassador even if they were only able to kill him by smoke inhalation? So for each and every instance of abuse of a corpse, I’ve got to write “atrocity” to meet your PCofA requirements? f I write “opting for the nastiest, cruelest question they can throw at us at such a moment,” guess what? That’s code for “ATROCITIES.”

    Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. If they’d been able to take him outside the compound, he likely would have been raped and potentially used for jihadi dramaturge. But since he WASN’T PUT ON DISPLAY by the Ansar/al Qaeda jihadis, I doubt he was even found….

  14. says

    Notice Americana is claiming I’m “Giving all Muslims the label of XXXXXXXXX extremist “, and yet he complains that he’s being misrepresented! What a laugh! I never said any such thing. I said that IN ISLAM there is no such thing as Peaceful Islam, and that those who want to live peaceful with non-muslims are not following Islam, but disobeying it. Of course there are lots of Muslims in name only who are peaceful. They are considered INFIDELS by muslims!

    As usual he ignores this and doesn’t refute it, but instead gives an andatotal story of a muslim disobeying Islam, as if that’s convincing!

  15. says

    Also notice, this claim that critics of Islam (who point out the violence inherent in Islam) are trying to lump all Muslims, who are violent and peaceful. This is exactly the arguments Muslims apologists make, and yet Americana can’t fathom why people here mistake her for a Muslim apologist!

  16. says

    (ME) I dare you. It’ll be interesting to see if he goes off the reservation in the interest of journalistic integrity.
    …………………….

    Once again, a total misread by grievous image of my post above. I didn’t say anything about “standing against jihad not being in line w/journalistic integrity.” What I said is that if your supposedly journaiist husband can read my comments and CONSISTENTLY misread them as you do, distort them as you do, then his journalism skills are very suspect.

    (grievousimage) What a bizarre thing to say”as though standing against Jihad is not entirely in line with journalistic integrity.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Foolster — I’m not at all ambivalent on the fact Islam has exceptionally vicious strictures. That’s why I’ve always been interested in Muslims who are working to reform Islam. We aren’t going to get rid of Islam so there’s only the (rather vain) hope that transformation will affect adequate changes to remove its worst practices. Simply shoving Islam into its present dominance of one of the world’s hemispheres isn’t going to keep it down for eternity. Isolation is only suitable for controlling Islam for so long. Once the demographics become too disproportionate, I do worry about what the Muslim world’s choices will be. Like the Christian pastor who began the latest “Rapture” movement all over the world only to have two separate dates for the Rapture fizzle and fall flat w/no signs of Rapture at all, Muslim manifest destiny could be a very scary thing to behold. An awful lot of terrible things could happen if Islam dominates the world demographics and then becomes expansionist. For now, Islam’s historical outreach is still primarily focused on recreating the geographic reach of the last Caliphate in Eurasia w/other, smaller caliphates trying to be formed in Indonesia, but in the future, who knows?

    We are seeing the erosion of certain aspects of Shar’iah while seeing other aspects be brought more to bear on today’s social issues. But because this is happening across a very wide range of societies, its unclear what gains are being made while seeing what other progressive steps are being lost. Who knows why this is so other than it’s how sociology plays out in Islamic communities? Read the Baghdad Blogger’s full list of blog posts and then we’ll talk about whether there are Muslims who are genuinely interested in reform of Islam. He’s not a man to give up on reform.

  17. says

    Americana is more polite this time to me, but still doesn’t get it. It doesn’t matter if there are those who wish to reform Islam from within like “Bagdad blogger” (though I will check out the blog). TO REMOVE MOHAMMAD’S TEACHINGS WOULD BE LIKE CHRISTIANITY REMOVING CHRIST”S TEACHINGS. Those who would do so are considered non-believers (and in Islam, this means the penalty of DEATH). There can NEVER be a majority movement to reform Islam, and so to count on it doesn’t matter. I appreciate the unusual politeness this time, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to agree. Americana hasn’t shown how gutting the Quoran and Hadiths can be possible. We’re expected to accept it as faith that it will one day happen.

    Also, I have no idea what someone beleiving in the rapture has anything to do with Islam. It almost sounds like Americana is once again (She tried to compare the refomration of Christianity with a possible reformation of Islam, which makes no sense, as I’ve already pointed out and she won’t actknowledge) trying to make equations between Islam and Christianity, as if someone who believes in Rapture would lead to any kind of remotely simular “scary” consequences like that of a believer in Sharia Jihad.

  18. says

    so, I did some looking at the Bagdad blogger. Mostly it seems he covers news of things happening in Iraq. I see very little in way of talking about actual reformation, and he does seem very peaceful, moderate and reasonable. But that means he is a fellow Kuffir to the majority of muslims there. Searching for the word “reform” I get exactly 0 hits.

    While I’m happily suprised he doesn’t apear to bea two-faced Jihadist (those who talk nice in english to westerners, but spout hate to fellow muslims). I’m not sure why Americana thinks this is a good example case for those who want to reform Islam.

  19. says

    Both of you —- Why on earth would you think you would get hits by googling ‘Baghdad Blogger’ and ‘reform?’ He is not that kind of activist but he is an activist. He’s a writer. As a journalist, he’s only allowed to do certain things in the way of political action. I mention him because he’s indicative of the new secular Muslims in the world. I’ve been told there are no secular Muslims who are aware of the flaws in Islam. He **is** the future Muslim who is aware of the problems deep within the religion. I’m sure he’s aware of what those problems are or he wouldn’t HAVE FLED IRAQ having spent years insulting the boneheaded Muslim militias!!

    Jan —- Don’t **you dare** superimpose fallacious suggestions on what I write either! You’re no more allowed to do that than grievousimage is. NOWHERE have I ever suggested we don’t fight jihad wherever and however we can. But knowing which jihad(s) it is we are fighting as U.S. citizens is essential.

    You also misunderstood my bringing up the phenomenon of The Rapture. That is only a reference to how easily populations may be swayed into action by the right mix of charisma, theology, and world events. It doesn’t matter these Christians didn’t do anything that affected or hurt anyone else. The fact is that for Muslims, the next Mahdi who arrives in this world is supposed to bring the entire world under the domination of Islam. You’re bitching and moaning here on JW about what amount of Islamization is around the world now and yet you fail to see that I’m saying the situation could get much, much worse if the next Mahdi shows up and people begin following him w/the same degree of fervor accorded this Christian pastor. Boy, first you say you’re against world domination of Islam and then you’re all like, “la di da, what me worry?” I don’t understand how you mistook that statement. More hands on/brains off disinformation out of you!

    We are NOT fighting the Tamil Tigers in the U.S. We are fighting the Palestinian jihad. That means we focus our major energies on solving the Palestinian jihad. It’s funny you would recast my point about imams calling an attacked Muslim population to jihad against other Muslims as (Jan)> “merely a power struggle between jihadists over who is Islamic, or not Islamic enough.” THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS JIHAD IS and either you’re ignorant of the words “self-defense” or you’re clueless about war.

  20. says

    Declan Walsh was likely kicked out because there’s going to be a lot of dirty political dealing w/all the various Muslim factions. Nation building under a passel of thugs is never pretty and it should never be done in the light of day. He’s a journalist and he’s got his nose to the grindstone and he’s taking names and making contacts. THAT is the “undesirable activities” of which he’s accused…

    >>>>The newspaper said in an article published on its website Friday that their longtime foreign correspondent was handed a two-sentence letter accusing him of unspecified “undesirable activities” and ordering him to leave….

  21. says

    “I’ve been told there are no secular Muslims who are aware of the flaws in Islam. ”

    You’ve been told no such thing here. There are plenty of muslims who want to reform Islam. Actually, no. Whether they admit it (such as Hersh Ali) or not, they are not muslims, but apostates. I’ve already explained this above (which you once again ignore): to remove the core of Islam is apostasy.
    “secular Mulsim” is as much an oximoron as “secular Christian” or “secular Hindu”.

    “He **is** the future Muslim who is aware of the problems deep within the religion.”

    That’s funny, becuse after reading through his blog I see no mentions to the flaws in the Quoran or hadiths or core teachings of Islam (as I said, he only points out news of things happening). Notice Americana ignores the argument, that to be a reformer is apostasy (which has the penalty of death in Islam), thus making any kind of reform impossible. Also, this is one of the examples of the “new islam” but he doesn’t talk about actually reforming the religion, but he’s one of the people who’s going to help on this reform?

    “Boy, first you say you’re against world domination of Islam and then you’re all like, “la di da, what me worry?”
    HAHAHAHA. Americana is such a hypocrite. I see no such idea in Jan’s post (in fact MULTIPLE TIMES talks of concern about Jihad). and yet AMERICANA has the GALL to complain that she is being misrepresented! WOW!

  22. says

    My first post was a little confusing. I don’t beleive anyone here has told you that there are no people who claim to at least claim to be Muslim who want to reform Islam. This was already refuted when you said “I’ve been repeatedly told by JWers that no Muslims would ever go against their religion in this way. ” over in the “Morocco” thread. You just keep lying again and again and refusing the answers to your lies (and then move onto another thread), and wonder why we don’t take you seriously!

  23. says

    My first post was a little confusing. I don’t beleive anyone here has told you that there are no people who at least claim to be Muslim who want to reform Islam. This was already refuted when Americana said “I’ve been repeatedly told by JWers that no Muslims would ever go against their religion in this way. ” over in the “Morocco” thread. Americana just keeps lying again and again and refusing the answers to your lies (and then move onto another thread), and wonders why we don’t take her seriously!

  24. says

    Whether jihad is legit or not depends on Sharia’h law. I wouldn’t discuss the question because I would then, by default, be accepting the legitimacy of Sharia’h.

    So, no discussion!

    Your a clown!

  25. says

    I’m afraid you’re wasting your time. You can rub some people’s noses in the facts until the cows come home, but if they don’t want to accept the facts, they won’t.

    Although I don’t actually think the troll’s deliberate rejection of facts is denial in the true sense of the word; it’s deliberate **obfuscation**, in an attempt to split the camp, and engender dissension and discord.

    May I suggest, if you feel you **must** refute the troll, do so without engaging with it directly. It really doesn’t merit the personal attention of intelligent and knowledgeable posters.

  26. says

    You wrote: ‘I’ve said in previous threads that I believed ‘jihad’ is sometimes the equivalent of OUR western term, ‘war.”

    It’s not ‘sometimes’ anything that you believe, it’s *always* the command by Allah in Al Qur’an to rub out the opposition until ‘…..all religion is for Allah’ — meaning, until there are no competing religions, only Islam!

    And as I said in my last post, to discuss this topic which is defined in terms laid down by Sharia’h would be to accept, by default, that Sharia’h is a reputable measure of how we evaluate human activity.

    Not a chance Amrika! You’re a clown!

    * A note to those wishing to disengage from Amrika’s trolling. Do what you feel is right, but I usually take on trolls because there may be innocents who pass by JW and read their posts and get the mistaken idea that they are right, or half-way right.
    Anyway, it gives me thinking practice. Ergo, how do I dismantle this argument? It’s mental exercise.

  27. says

    I do not get your point. You are asking if Muslims fighting between themselves, for whatever reason is considered a Jihad. That is of no concern to us, that is whatever word they want to us in their own societies is fine by us. But when Jihad is directed at non-Muslims, the Jihad as described and mandated against non-believers in the Koran, that is the Jihad that concerns us.

  28. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    I posted this on another thread about the unrest in Sudan where the imams are asking the populace to fight jihad against the Muslim rebels. As I’ve asked before, are there legitimate jihads vs. illegitimate jihads and is this Sudan jihad an instance of “legitimate” jihad in protection of the country and her citizens?
    ……………………………….

    “Americana” would have us believe that *Sudan*, of all places, is a “moderate” Muslim nation fighting a “radical” insurgency.

    *Nothing* could be further from the truth”Sudan is an oppressive Shari’ah state that mutilates, murders, and *enslaves* its own citizens, and all on the basis of Islamic law.

    So”what is going on here in Sudan? Firstly, there is *no* regime, no matter how brutal, that cannot be accused of being “insufficiently Islamic. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the regime is more “moderate” than are the pious insurgents, or that a Jihad against such insurgents is to be regarded as some sort of ‘Jihad against extremism’.

    Instead, this is a *power struggle between Jihadists*.

    Same with the story above from Pakistan’some of these Jihadists are content to use the ballot box to impose full Shari’ah, and some Jihadists believe that even this vague nod to “democracy”, even as a short-term tool, is “un-Islamic”, and hence worth waging Jihad terror over. Ultimately, this is just a spat”albeit a bloody one, as is so much else in Islam”about tactics, not something ultimately substantive.

    Of course, chances are that the sly “Americana” is fully aware of this, but just believes she has an opportunity here of positing a “positive” Jihad here.

    Yet more:

    And if so, would asking the populace to wage jihad against these terrorists disrupting voting in Pakistan be worthwhile or would it cause a further reduction in their country’s peace and stability?
    ……………………………….

    There is no “peace and stability” in Pakistan. Pakistan is an Islamic hell hole. As the last vestiges of the (only partially civilizing) influences of British law there fade, this will become even more marked.

    And more again:

    As far as I’m concerned, this qualifies as “legitimate jihad/war” since it’s in defence of their homes and families.
    ……………………………….

    This is the same thing that Jihadists say when they are murdering Americans, Brits, Israelis, other Infidels, and *each other*. It is a meaningless trope of “defensive” Jihad, and applies to every occasion in the absence of a Caliphate and its prerogative for “legitimately” declaring offensive Jihad.

    “Americana’s” assertion that we should join with her in rooting for the “good guy” Jihadists to win is rather like a Jewish person trapped in Nazi Germany taking a fervent stand with either the Black Shirts or the Brown Shirts during the Night of the Longs Knives.

    Ultimately, it would be meaningless”and so is “Americana’s” crap here.

  29. says

    I usually take on trolls because there may be innocents…

    You are a fine trollologist…keep up the good work…There is a psychology behind anti-troll activity…you seem to have a good grasp…

  30. says

    Thank you duh swami! I take that as a great compliment. However, I feel that I have s-o-o-o-o much to learn yet about Islam. But the learning process is fascinating!

  31. says

    mr. swami, Veritas and exsgtbrown —- As I wrote before, there are instances where the term “jihad” is equivalent to our “war,” and this is most definitely it. It’s used here to up the ante and inspire Muslim civilian “troops” like our cry of “For King and Country.” It’s being used to bolster the conviction of untrained civilians pitted against a known vicious Muslim militia during internecine wrangling that is equivalent to civil wars around the world. Who knows what Shar’iah punishments and intimidation will be carried out by this militia against these Muslim civilians? Courage to them and their families.

    **We stand to gain in major ways if more jihads like the above are called for against the Muslim jihadi opposition.** Yes, I’d agree the “jihad” that concerns us is the jihad declared against us in the West. But we stand to gain an awful lot if any such internecine jihads enable the better Muslim groups to win across Eurasia and the East. If no Muslim group is more preferable than another Muslim group, then why wrangle over this issue of jihad at all? The West could simply gradually opt for isolationistism, problem solved. We may laugh at the insanity that is Islamist factionalism, I also pray that the “good guys” win from among those factions.

  32. says

    You believe the story about the rape of the Ambassador? I don’t.

    The first photo of Ambassador Stevens as he was dragged out of the consulate safe room to be taken to the hospital, his belt was FASTENED and his pants were UP AROUND HIS WAIST. There are NO HAND PRINTS in the soot around his lower torso as there would be if someone had pulled up his pants and refastened them, nevermind the hand prints that would have indicated someone or several jihadists had manhandled and raped Ambassador Stevens.

    Anal rape? I doubt it. I think that’s those vile, punk Muslim militia folks tormenting us and opting for the nastiest, cruelest question they can throw at us at such a moment. If those militia folks HAD FOUND Ambassador Stevens’ body, they would have dragged his body through the streets and done the raping as he was dragged behind a vehicle as was done w/Saddam Hussein. That’s the one dead giveaway w/the idiot jihadist. They’re so anxious to brag their way into the annals of jihad, they don’t even know when their story is going to fall apart. Same w/that character who was going to kill Bartholomew of Constantinople — “I don’t know the man. I don’t know what his job is… blah, blah, blah…”

  33. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    Foolster —- Giving all Muslims the label of XXXXXXXXX extremist is ridiculous. They may have great uniformity in their religion, but how they exercise their religion has a great deal to do w/their immediate environment, their family and friends.
    ………………………

    This is ridiculous. Muslims have been slaughtering other Muslims for being “insufficiently Islamic” since the earliest days of Islam. This is *not* a mitigating point, but a damning one.

    More:

    grievousimage —– I’m changing your handle to “grievous”…
    ………………………

    Knock yourself out. This is what passes for wit with “Americana”.

    More:

    So what does little miss grievousimage decide to do w/that sentence (speechwriter to Presidents she is not!)? She says there is NO PEACE AND STABILITY in Pakistan whatsoever.. True, there is no “peace and stability” as we Americans understand those terms…
    ………………………

    Well, this is true. The “Peace of Islam”, after all, is Islamic jargon for the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law. Islam does not use terms like “peace” in the same way that rational Westerners do.

    More:

    (ME) As far as I’m concerned, this qualifies as “legitimate jihad/war” since it’s in defence of their homes and families.

    One again, littlemissgrievousimage decides to totally deconstruct and reconstruct the very plainly stated point which is that there is some jihad practiced that is akin to our World Wars
    ………………………

    Positing *any* Jihad as the same as our principled and moral fight against Fascism is false and grotesque. One gang of Jihadists battling for power against an arguably even uglier gang of Jihadists does not qualify.

    Moreover, on another thread “Americana” positing the call for Jihad against the Sudanese SPLA as a similar “good Jihad” is perhaps even more questionable, since this rebel group sprang up in opposition to Kartoum’s violent Jihad campaign of rape and genocide in Darfur.

    More:

    These jihads are undertaken in defense of family and country against outright invaders. These particular villages aren’t pouring out of their country’s borders to attack infidels. They’re preparing to wage war ON THEIR HOME TURF against fellow Muslims of an opposite and antagonistic extremist persuasion.
    ………………………

    Many of these same villagers are very much in support of killing Infidels in neighboring Afghanistan, and many of them are voting to impose brutal Shari’ah law in their own regions of Pakistan. Pretending that local villagers are against ‘extremism’ in some way is iffy at best.

    And positing the people bombing these polling places as “invaders” is questionable, as well”the Taliban, in fact, is quite indigenous to the region.

    More:

    Fighting that if you and your **supposed** journalist husband had to do, I’m sure you’d change your appreciation for the range of meaning in the term “jihad.”
    ………………………

    No”I don’t intend to “wage Jihad” anytime soon, nor does my husband. “Americana”, though, is doing just that here”a sly “Jihad of the Pen”.

    More:

    (GRIEVOUSIMAGE) This is the same thing that Jihadists say when they are murdering Americans, Brits, Israelis, other Infidels, and *each other*. It is a meaningless trope of “defensive” Jihad, and applies to every occasion in the absence of a Caliphate and its prerogative for “legitimately” declaring offensive Jihad.
    ………………………

    Is “Americana” attempting to rebut the above in some manner, or is she just running it again because this is such an apt point I made?

    More:

    You believe the story about the rape of the Ambassador? I don’t…

    Anal rape? I doubt it. I think that’s those vile, punk Muslim militia folks tormenting us and opting for the nastiest, cruelest question they can throw at us at such a moment. If those militia folks HAD FOUND Ambassador Stevens’ body, they would have dragged his body through the streets and done the raping as he was dragged behind a vehicle as was done w/Saddam Hussein. That’s the one dead giveaway w/the idiot jihadist. They’re so anxious to brag their way into the annals of jihad, they don’t even know when their story is going to fall apart.
    ………………………

    In other words, why worry about the atrocity of anal rape? It’s just something those cocky Jihadists like to brag about. Nothing to take seriously. This is just like their empty bragging about having slaughtered our ambassador and diplomatic staff…oh, wait…

  34. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    I dare you. It’ll be interesting to see if he goes off the reservation in the interest of journalistic integrity.
    …………………….

    What a bizarre thing to say”as though standing against Jihad is not entirely in line with journalistic integrity.

  35. says

    ”Americana is more polite this time to me, but still doesn’t get it”

    This is part of its tactics. Personally, I think ‘Americana’ gets it very well indeed.( at one time I was toying with the idea that it suffered from poor social and intellectual skills, and just didn’t have the ability to express itself coherently, but I now think that this is just another mask).

    This nonsense with the Baghdad Blogger is just more smoke and mirrors.

    ”. Searching for the word “reform” I get exactly 0 hits”. Exactly.

    ” … trying to make equations between Islam and Christianity, as if someone who believes in Rapture would lead to any kind of remotely simular “scary” consequences like that of a believer in Sharia Jihad”.

    Yep. The usual attempts at moral equivalencing as practised by the left, useful idiots, tools and enablers, and muslim apologists.

    Those who believe in the ”Rapture” are harmless nutters, who would harm no-one.

    Those who want to impose sharia, however, want to impose beheadings, amputations, floggings, stonings, etc etc.

    ”Americana hasn’t shown how gutting the Quoran and Hadiths can be possible. We’re expected to accept it as faith that it will one day happen”

    Yes, with the added implication that since it’s going to happen some time in the future, we shouldn’t bother fighting jihad **now**.

    ”While I’m happily suprised he doesn’t apear to bea two-faced Jihadist (those who talk nice in english to westerners, but spout hate to fellow muslims). I’m not sure why Americana thinks this is a good example case for those who want to reform Islam.”

    It doesn’t. This is just another attempt to muddy the waters.

    It says:

    ”And if so, would asking the populace to wage jihad against these terrorists disrupting voting in Pakistan be worthwhile or would it cause a further reduction in their country’s peace and stability?”

    This is a deliberate ignoring of the fact that what is happening is merely a power struggle between jihadists over who is Islamic, or not Islamic enough.

    It gets that, but wants to deflect away from it, by babbling about legitimate jihad vs illegitimate jihad, in the hope of suckering in some new visitor to JW, who may think this nonsense possibly has some credibility.

    Going back to the article, Foolster, any ideas on why the Pakis kicked out this Declan Walsh ? That’s what intrigues *me*.

  36. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    Foolster — I’m not at all ambivalent on the fact Islam has exceptionally vicious strictures. That’s why I’ve always been interested in Muslims who are working to reform Islam.
    ……………………………

    There are, actually, *very few* Muslims working to reform Islam”there is not a single movement attempting to reform Islam today.

    More:

    We aren’t going to get rid of Islam so there’s only the (rather vain) hope that transformation will affect adequate changes to remove its worst practices.
    ……………………………

    How meretricious. Islam has been at least partially defanged before, and this didn’t involve any sort of internal transformation on the part of Islam. Not all of these techniques would work today, given the weaponry held by Jihadists and their inroads into the civilized West itself, but this general approach is likely to be more successful than is the pipe dream of peaceful internal reform of Islam”which, as “Americana” has it, is bound to happen after we all are dead.

    More:

    Simply shoving Islam into its present dominance of one of the world’s hemispheres isn’t going to keep it down for eternity. Isolation is only suitable for controlling Islam for so long. Once the demographics become too disproportionate, I do worry about what the Muslim world’s choices will be. Like the Christian pastor who began the latest “Rapture” movement all over the world only to have two separate dates for the Rapture fizzle and fall flat w/no signs of Rapture at all, Muslim manifest destiny could be a very scary thing to behold.
    ……………………………

    Uh….what? Did anyone”except, perhaps, those disappointed in the failure of the Rapture to materialize”find this “scary”? People who believe in the Rapture are not violent. This is utter claptrap.

    The most recent prediction for the time of the Rapture was October of 2011. The date passed with little fanfare, and no upheaval”just a bit of embarrassment on the part of the minister who had made the prediction.

    More:

    An awful lot of terrible things could happen if Islam dominates the world demographics and then becomes expansionist. For now, Islam’s historical outreach is still primarily focused on recreating the geographic reach of the last Caliphate in Eurasia w/other, smaller caliphates trying to be formed in Indonesia, but in the future, who knows?
    ……………………………

    Given that “Americana” has consistently pooh-poohed the idea that the Jihad against the United States has anything to do with anything beyond our support of Israel. what the above paragraph of hers hints at is very odd.

    More:

    We are seeing the erosion of certain aspects of Shar’iah while seeing other aspects be brought more to bear on today’s social issues. But because this is happening across a very wide range of societies, its (sic) unclear what gains are being made while seeing what other progressive steps are being lost. Who knows why this is so other than it’s how sociology plays out in Islamic communities?
    ……………………………

    This last is a bland way to describe the imposition of brutal Shari’ah. And can “Americana” describe a single part of Dar-al-Islam where Shari’ah is losing ground through reform?

    Also, Shari’ah *does not change*, so her sly assertion that it is only being brought to bear on “today’s social issues” is utterly false”like her assertion that the resurgence if Islamic interest in sexual slavery was only due to “Western decadence””and as though the curative to the social problem of prostitution was *sexual slavery*.

    More:

    Read the Baghdad Blogger’s full list of blog posts and then we’ll talk about whether there are Muslims who are genuinely interested in reform of Islam. He’s not a man to give up on reform.
    ……………………………

    Actually, he’s not a man who has ever mentioned reform in the first place. His purpose seemed to be chronicling the early stages of the war in Iraq, not reforming Islam.

    More:

    I mention him because he’s indicative of the new secular Muslims in the world.
    ……………………………

    A “secular Muslim” is, in essence, an apostate who is too frightened of reprisal to identify himself as such. Such “secular Muslims” seldom have an interest in actually attempting to reform Islam”they simply hope to escape the dangerous attention of their more pious coreligionists, which is a very different matter.

    More:

    Jan —- Don’t **you dare** superimpose fallacious suggestions on what I write either! You’re no more allowed to do that than grievousimage (sic) is.
    ……………………………

    Once again, “Americana” is attempting to threaten posters here, and to limit how we can respond to her meretricious assertions. Ugly stuff. A good thing that she is not in an actual position to follow up on any of this.

    More:

    NOWHERE have I ever suggested we don’t fight jihad wherever and however we can. But knowing which jihad(s) it is we are fighting as U.S. citizens is essential.
    ……………………………

    This is “Americana’s” tired assertion that there would be no Jihad against the United States were it not for our support of Israel, which is both ugly and false.

    She also appears ignorant of the fact that Jan is British, not American, and that Britain has certainly been the increasing target of violent Jihad.

    More:

    You also misunderstood my bringing up the phenomenon of The Rapture. That is only a reference to how easily populations may be swayed into action by the right mix of charisma, theology, and world events. It doesn’t matter these Christians didn’t do anything that affected or hurt anyone else. The fact is that for Muslims, the next Mahdi who arrives in this world is supposed to bring the entire world under the domination of Islam.
    ……………………………

    There’s at least one “Mahdi” claimant currently extant, and two more who were making such claims just this century. None of these idiots inspired a world-wide movement. In fact, each of them suffered persecution at the hands of their more orthodox coreligionists. This has, in fact, generally been the pattern historically.

    More:

    You’re bitching and moaning here on JW about what amount of Islamization is around the world now and yet you fail to see that I’m saying the situation could get much, much worse if the next Mahdi shows up and people begin following him w/the same degree of fervor accorded this Christian pastor.
    ……………………………

    The Christian pastor in question actually had rather a small following”and, as noted, an entirely peaceful one. I don’t fear people like this pastor at all.

    Of course, one cannot rule out Muslims might well becoming even more crazed and fanatical than they are now”this possibility comes as no surprise to anyone here.

    More:

    We are NOT fighting the Tamil Tigers in the U.S.
    ……………………………

    Why does “Americana” keep positing the Tamil Tigers not fighting us as proof that only “Palestinians” target us for Jihad, when the Tamil Tigers are not even Jihadists? Well, I suppose I just answered my own question…