I don’t see anybody pointing towards right direction. We must see the reason for what is going on in the world today, when it started and how it started. If one goes back in history and sees the creation of Jewish state (I always call it Palestine) it all started with its creation and off course it will finish with the end of it. What so ever US does it is not going to stop violence because of these Jew evils. The peace loving people has to wait until this evil is removed from the world.

Read the paper how Jew terrorists are killing innocent Palestinians. I think the US should join with Muslims to get rid of this evil if we want peace for our coming generations.

Innocent and weapon less Palestinians are putting up a brave fight that world has never seen and believe me it is not far that world will be thankful to Muslims for getting rid of Jews. These guys don’t believe in peace where ever they have gone they were kicked out from there, I appreciate that because they don’t deserve life, if you ask me nuke them Pakistan has sufficient nuke missiles that will burn their assess.

I don’t use such language normally but I had to here.

Killing "in the name of God" is always immoral. It is amazing that a billion people can advocate such a practice. This is the worst sin of all.
Then of course, we can mention the violent defiling of the shrine, also a blasphemy, and the killing of fourteen other people. I wonder who the murder-contractor was that sent out this hit. Such people will have their place in Hell.

Peacelover

Are you really a complete moron, or are you just pretending to be one in order to entertain us?

"if you ask me nuke them Pakistan has sufficient nuke missiles that will burn their assess"

Peacelover, your name is a misnomer. Considering the arabs miserable failure to eradicate Israel, I suggest that trying to nuke Israel would be disastrous (for the arabs). It is wonderful to see Israel exist as a democratic thorn in the side of your murderous brethren.

Islam is a death cult.

peacelover

you have it all wrong. i will pray that your eyes be opened and you may see the trutyh

You have to give us Jews credit, that 5 million of us can manage to oppress 138 million people in Bangladesh! Not to mention a half a billion muslims from Morroco to packistan.

Guys ignore the troll who in a particularly Orwellian fasion is calling himself "peacelover"

Peacelover...

When was the last time you heard of a Jew or a Christian strapping on a bomb or lobbing a grenade into a crowd?

You need to wake up...Only madmen and Spoiled children blame others for their actions. We are not buying it for a minute.

Suicide bombing is not original to your Muslims. The Japanese tried it too...But then they suffered a very serious consequence and stopped the behavior.

Soon the world will wake up and start to impose very serious consequences on people that murder themselves and others for any reason...God? Injustice? You name it. It will bring disaster and long term pain and suffering to your religion, your family and country.

This and only this will change the hearts and minds of madmen. It will either change them or eliminate them. Either way the world will be a better place.

Explosives have made the evil assassinations of Islam more deadly. Used to be just one man assassinating another with a dagger in the back. The massive car bombs in Iraq kill tens of innocents at a time. Islamic doctrine of assassination again which Mohammed engaged in himself. Modern Jihadis emulating the "exemplary life" of Mo' as their Koran commands them to do.

It will be interesting to see if Irene Khan, the head of that now heavily politicized organization, Amnesty International, a woman herself of Muslim Bangladeshi descent, and normally so exercised about the United States (and, bien sur, Israel), and its putative "war crimes," will forthrightly take the lead in denouncing, again and again, the massacres of Christians and especially of HIndus in Bangladesh. She was recently there, and what seemed to exercise her the most was the declaration that Ahmadiyyas were not legitimate Muslims -- so fair game for persecution by Muslims.

One would like Irene Khan to discuss what it was about the redefinition of the status of Ahmadiyyas was so worrying. Why would it matter, if they are called "Muslims" or not, if Islam itself is the religion of peace and tolerance we hear that it is? Why would being declared "not-Muslim" affect the wellbeing, in Bangladesh, of Ahmaddiyyas? Irene Khan knows the answer. But she persists in refusing to join Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and others. Instead she pretends that the problem is not Islam, not the words of Qur'an and hadith -- no, no, that will never do -- but the "cultural" or "civilisational" attitudes that, for some reason, are remarkably coincident in time and space with Islam.

Khan, for example, takes the absurd Shirin-Ebadi line that Islam does not encourage the suppression of women. The fact that the Qur'an explains just how to beat your wife, and explicitly defines women as inferior to men, the fact that Muhammad married (what was it? 9 wives? 11? I lost count) many women, with the last, favorite wife being married to him at 6 (he first saw her on her swing set, and it was love at first sight), and had sexual intercourse (one hopes of the missionary kind, though Islam tells you, re your women, that you may "plow your field in every way" -- nudge nudge) with Aisha when she was nine (I almost forgot: one hadith, in one of the collections of strong hadith, has Muhammad eyeing a toddler rather romantically, but death -- his death -- intervened).

Bangladesh, the Moluccas, the southern Sudan, northern Nigeria, southern Philippines, East Timor, Sulawesi, etc. -- and soon, coming to a country near you -- the Jihad, and the forced imposition of dhimmitude. The textual evidence is clear; the historical evidence is overwhelming -- see Bat Ye'or on the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islam, see Mary Boyce on the treatment of Zoroastrians under Islam, see K. S. Lal, Sita Ram Goel, and Koenraad Elst on the treatment of Hindus under Islam. And see a hundred other scholars who have been deliberately ignored, or suppressed outright, by the MESA-minded professors who, mostly Muslims or non-Muslims wishing to curry favor (tenure is so hard to get, and so are those summer grants, and fellowships and -- well, you know -- to get along, go along, the Golden Rule of thoroughly-modern and mostly mediocre academics), do not bring up the dozens upon dozens of serious studies of dhimmitude, from Spain to East Asia. Their poor students, deliberately indoctrinated into the wonders of Islam (I know of a case, just this past spring, of a student who was given a 2 out of 10 when he made the mistake, in a course on Islam taught by one Ali Aslani, and graded by one Rashid Hussein, of describing the "miraj" (Muhammad's supposed Night Journey, on his winged steed Al-Buraq, up to the Heaven and back, from "al-masjid al-aksa" or "the furthest mosque"), of desribing the "miraj" as an "allegorical" journey. The grader was indignant -- was this non-Muslim student implying that Muhammad had NOT ascended into Heaven, on his winged steed al-Buraq, and come back to earth, within 24 hours? Why, that certainly deserves a 2 out of 10.

And this little incident happened, by the way, at Harvard. Larry Summers, do you give a damn that the courses on Islam at your university are nothing more than propaganda? Have you looked at the syllabi? Have you asked students about those courses? Have y ou, who were so exercised about Cornel West, and allow yourself to believe that the courses at Harvard undergo some quality control (absolute nonsense, of course), bothered to investigate how Islam and related matters are taught? And it is the same at Yale, and in many other places. It begins with the politicizing even of the teaching of Arabic (ask the unhappy students of that Coffin lady who teaches beginning Arabic at Princeton, the one married to the "Palestinian," and who injects politics into every verb form, for an example of how not to teach Arabic).

Meanwhile, let's get back to keeping a bead on Bangladesh. Make no mistake: it is an unpleasant place, made unpleasant by the aggressions of Islam. No Tales of a Bengal Lancer, and no verses by the once-celebrated Rabindranath Tagore (not a Muslim, so disliked very much in Bangladesh), are part of present-day Bangladesh, or to make it more pleasingly exotic, Bangla Desh. The massacres of millions of insufficiently loyal, or insufficiently Muslim, Bangladeshis by the army of West Pakistan, seems to have left little impression. One might, under the circumstances, have thought that that little display of murderous aggression, with the stated aim of restoring the right rule of Allah to a wavering Bengali population, might have had long-term effects of fervor. Nope, does not seem to have happened, always excepting the handful of skeptical freedom-lovers who, through the Internet, are learning about Islam and its disastrous effects on the intellect, and on human potential, everywhere it has imposed its will.

hey peacelove (sali),

There are a mere 12 Million Jews in the entire world yet they have received 161 Nobel Prizes. The Muslims number 1.4 Billion (with a very big "B")... or 117 times the number of Jews! Based upon this 117:1 Muslim-to-Jewish ratio, one might expect the Muslims to have 22,260 Nobel Laureates.They have SIX! and one of them [Arafat] is a murderer (Allah Akbar, indeed!) Unless the Norwegians start awarding Nobel Prizes for plane hijackings, pizza shop bombings, civilian bus attacks, Jihad suicides/homicides, drive-by shootings, throat-slittings, embassy attacks and other such acts of barbarisms, the embarrassing low level of contribution to the welfare of Civilization and Mankind by the [Arab] Muslim world will continue.

Six? The Nobel Prizewinner from Pakistan, Abdus Salam, is officially Ahamadiyya (not a real Muslim) and unofficially a non-believer; he does not count as a Muslim. That leaves five.

I can think only of the Arafat farce, and of the political equivalent of affirmative action by which Naguib Mahfouz, a kind of Cairene Theodore Dreiser, was handed a prize (well, what can you expect when among those who did not receive the Nobel for Literature were Leo Tolstoy, Marcel Proust, Andrey Bely, Franz Kafka, Karl Kraus, James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov, Andrey Platonov, Georges Perec, Osip Mandelshtam, Aleksandr Blok, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, W. H. Auden, Philip Larkin, Vladislav Khodasevich, Dino Buzzati, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Umberto Saba, N. S. Chaudhury, Alfonso Reyes, and on and on, and continuing with the overlooked living. You know how it works -- there's an unstated quota, defined by language and supposed national origin. If the quasi-Dutch (because Afrikaans though English-writing) J. S. Coetzee manages to get it, then that queers the pitch for other Dutch or Dutchish writers, such as the much better Cees Nooteboom.

Aside from the non-Muslim Abdus Salam, that leaves Arafat and Mahfouz, as two of the six, both of them politically motivated prizes (the one to encourage "peace" through Israeli capitulation, the other to throw a sop to the Arabic-language audience (Mahfouz, not particularly devout though still a believer in some of the anti-Israel line spewed out by the Egyptian press, was stabbed by a Muslim fanatic who objected to something he, Mahfouz, had written some 30 years before). Of course there are no scientists among these six (see above for Abdus Salam; there can't be, there never will be a Believing Muslim who wins a Nobel in pure science -- bomb-making is quite another matter; war-making technology is where all Muslim "science" is directed). And no fairsies, as we say in second-grade, counting the chemist Elias Khoury, who is of Christian Lebanese descent (a refugee from Islam). The tribe of talented English Atiyahs, similarly, whatever awards they receive, also fall into the same category: Western, quasi-Christian man. I can't figure out who those other three might be.

In any case, the point is made. And it is an important one.

Islam stunts the mental growth. It really does, whatever Tariq Ramadan and other up-to-the-New-York-minute mediagenic "Islalmic philosophers" may think. Yes the Western world is full of nonsense and triviality. No, Islam is not the solution, but something even worse, far far worse, than the swamp in which we swim.

Be kind to your children: keep them away from Islam; warn them of its real nature. You talk to them about smoking, about drugs. Explain what Islam is all about, lest more John Walker Lindhs and Adam Gadahns start "reverting" en masse.

And to those who do not have to "revert" because, , through no fault of their own, they were simply born into the belief-system known as Islam -- usually because centuries ago some ancestors were forced to convert, in order to escape either from death or intolerable conditions imposed on dhimmis by dominant Muslims, from Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, well -- at long last you are free (certainly in the dar al-Harb) to undo the damage. Free at last, thank lord almighty, free at last. If you wish. Take advantage. Shed those mind-forged manacles. Be true to your most distant ancestors, and not their oppressors, who forced them to become Muslims. Make up for those generations, in your own families, of people (and especially the women) who had their potential stunted because Islam provided a totalitarian system of Total Regulation of Everything. If not for yourself, then for the sake of your children, take your leave of Islam now. Not slyly, not secretly, but openly and noisily. Give them each a copy of Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim for birthdays or as graduation presents. Do not insist that they convert to another belief-system, but at least free them from the shackles of Islam. Why, especially for those either living in the West, or having to deal, in their lives, with so many Infidels, shoudl your children nhave to endure trying to reconcile the real tenets of Islam, and its constraints on skeptical inquiry, and the hostility it teaches toward Infidels (yes, they can try to ignore those tenets, but in order to do so, they will have to engage in mental somersaults, in denial, in intellectual and moral behavior that will be extremely damaging to them, wrenching, exhausting, and depleting, if they are to have to keep defending the indefensible belief-system into which one has been born and is not permitted to slough off. What if your daughterewants to marry a non-Muslim, and nowadays few intelligent non-Muslims will be wiling to become Muslim? Would you deny them the possibility of happiness because of the insistence, in Islam, that women can only be married to Muslim men? Really? In your own heart, and leaving aside the inclination to defend one's faith for all sorts of extraneous reasons, including a whisp of filial piety, a desire not to have one's parents or grandparents somehow insulted, what do you think of Islam? You know what you think. Skip the phony interfaith dialogues. Stop pretending to yourself it is only a "handful of extremists." Read Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim yourself. Go to www.secularislam.org, and www.faithfreedom.org. Study those testimonies and those articles. Let yourself decide for yourself. You are in dar al-Harb, or perhaps you are in Iran, about to slough off the mullahs; you are free to think as you wish.

Ibn Warraq did it. Ali Sina did it. That beautiful Hirst Ali lady in Holland did it. In 2003, in Turkey, 35,000 people converted to Christianity from Islam -- some of them, it is reported, the descendants of Armenians and Greeks who had been forcibly converted within the last century.

You can do it too, though you may have been born into a long Islamic past. Stop defending the indefensible. Stop being illogical. Stop pretending, for example, that Aisha was not nine years old, or that Muhammad did not have sexual intercourse with her, or that this story is not important today to Muslims (why else would Khomeini have lowered the marriageable age to nine?). Stop pretending that Qur'an and hadith are not full of aggressive, murderous admonitions against the Infidels. You know it is -- or if you don't know, why don't you find out about what Islam is really about, instead of parroting treacly nonsense?

Think not so much of the line of ancestors who were Muslim, but that even longer line of ancestors who preceded them and who were not Muslim -- who were Zoroastrian, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish, who at some point were forced, by the terrible conditions which obtained for all non-Muslims under Muslim rule, to convert not out of deep conviction, but simply in order to rescue themselves and their posterity from the effects of dhimmitude -- don't they deserve to be heeded?

Think of that line of descent, those ancestors, and their lives long before Islam arrived on the scene, sword and shari'a and humiliating jizyah in hand, to see justice done. Join the modern world. It has its faults, god knows, but try it out. Don't just wear modern dress, or talk pleasingly in English or French only in order to the better mislead the unwary Infidels. Really, try to live and to think as you would wish to, and to associate with Infidels not as people to be fooled, but as people to whom the real truth, the awful truth (not the Cary Grant-Irene Dunne movie, mind you) must be told. Try to live and try to think, to conduct research, to read or write books, without Islam holding you back, tying you down, making you say things you reallly don't believe, limiting your social life to the most banal and hollow pleasantries, and the fixed smile, and the phoniness, and the refusal to confront reality, in your every encounter with Infidels, including those you really find quite pleasant ahd charming (and you must admit some of us have our charms now, don't we?) Try on free thought. See if it fits.

There could be a Nobel Prize for the Most Imaginative Honour Killing. I seem to remember there was a Pakistani Muslim who heard scurrilous rumours about his sister, so he tied her to a table and then sawed her legs off. Personally I'd be pretty embarrassed if a member of my family sawed the legs off another relative, but in the Islamic world it makes you the life and soul of the party.

"Peacelover":

I believe my religion to be far superior to yours, but I also believe it senseless to try to argue that fact with Islamists. Therefore, I no longer do so. The only argument I use nowadays is actually similar to yours. There will be no peace on this earth until your side is completely eradicated from the face of the earth. If your side eradicates ours, then you will probably continue to kill off your fellow islamists, so there really won't be any peace under those circumstances. There is no peace without total victory. Arguing with each other is pissing into the wind.

Islamist posters frequently cite the "1.2 Billion Muslims" statistic to sound powerful. Well, however you look at it, that leaves 4.8 billion non-islamists, giving a ratio of 4 pissed off infidels for every 1 bloodthirsty brainwashed zombie islamist.

There will be no peace until there is total, complete victory. To Hell with arguing about it. Islam is a deep, abiding evil in this world, and it must be defeated with violent force.

SWE

It's the Palestinians who are the criminals here, suicide bombings, and what not. They are FAR from innocent.

Infidel23:

Brilliant idea!

Hugh
Islam does not regarded itself as having been initiated by the propehet/
but as having existed since the beginning of the planet. Adam was the first Muslim.
The prophet revealed Islam to the world in the way that it had not been truly revealed by Jidaism or Christianity or the persian Zaroastrians.
This means that everything past and present belongs to Islam.
The jews of Israel were therefore "proto muslims" who had not yet understood its wonders.
Therefore Israel was always Islamic even before the prophet was born.
All the prohets of the Jews were prohets who were "flawed" in theri non recogmition of Islam.
that is the understanding one gets from Bat yeors book on Islam and Dhimmitued.

I feel like echoing Prunella Scales, who plays Basil's wife in Fawlty Towers, when she nods her head and insists to another matron about some matter that is under discussion, or some bit of gossip: "I know. I know."

Hugh
i was merely trying to explain the fault of the Argument that Islam cannot lay claim to the past before the coming of the prophet, which is often used on this site, in terms of the muslim mindset.
THe argument that Israel and the Jews predate Islam and therefore they cannot lay claim to it is refuted by the "proto muslim" perception of Jews by Muslims ?
If course this argument can also be extented to any Christian Communities et al.

I don't care how dumb the Arabs are, they have to learn how to fight some time, and when they do Israel is gonna be GONE!!! WIPED OFF THE MAP!!! I'm just saying...they should probably be a little nicer to the muslims nooow, so that their conquerors will spare them in the future.

By the way, Osama is in Bangladesh. Right now. I'm not kidding.

ISreal has learnt a long time ago that being "nice" to Jihadists is commiting suicide.
Any sign of niceness is viewed as moral weakness to be exploited to the full.
Any ceasefires are hudnas a period to lick your wounds and gain strenght for further attacks.
GET REAL.

Why not simply pull out of Palestinian lands entirely, build a barrier wall with watch towers covering Israel's REAL borders, and shoot any Palestinian that tries to cross ilegally?

Aaron,

Arabs will learn modern military tactics, above squad level, about time the proverbial fish learns to ride a bicycle.

Osama is not in Bangladesh. I just saw him at lunch. He’s in Subway, having a veggie sub with Jared.

Historically and accurately speaking, the “Palestinian lands” are Egypt and Jordan. Israel has said many times that the Palestinians are welcome to have these lands. I think they’d even spring for bus fare, providing they didn't have to get near the bus.