| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad in the Balkans. But wait a minute: don't the learned pundits say that there is no significant threat there? "Bulgarian Police Official Warns Of Islamist Threat," from AP, with thanks to Nicolei:
SOFIA (AP)--Bulgaria's top police official warned Thursday that pockets of Islamic fundamentalism in the Balkans are creating a favorable environment for the establishment of militant groups.Speaking at a regional police anti-crime conference, Gen. Boiko Borisov urged for "joint efforts to fight the global terrorism network."
He warned that despite the elimination of several al-Qaida bases the level of threat remains high.
"The Balkans as a part of Europe are a potential target, a possible ground for terrorists," he said. "Our countries are backing the anti-terror coalition and this makes them possible targets of attacks."
Posted by Robert at April 15, 2005 5:38 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Where there's smoke there's a muslim.
Posted by: Just_Linda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 15, 2005 5:44 PM
"Our countries are backing the anti-terror coalition and this makes them possible targets of attacks."
No, General Borisov. Only countries that take part in invading and/or occupying Muslim countries are likely to be attacked by extremists.
Posted by: Shukri at April 15, 2005 6:59 PM
And is all muslims land
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 15, 2005 7:10 PM
Well, sure thing, Shurki. That's why Christians and Jews in muslim countries get attacked - and Shias, too, apparently. Then of course there were the jihadis in France that tried to derail a train; what had the French done, again?
Then again, only countries that produce extremists are likely to be attacked.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 15, 2005 7:12 PM
Muslims are invading and occupying Europe and America. London is crawling with Muslims. But youll never hear Shukuri speak of that. He himself is part of the invasion. I doubt he lives in a Muslim sh**hole nation. He's much too good for that. He's better than them. Shukri likes living high off the hog in the developed nations of the West
Posted by: dennisw at April 15, 2005 7:30 PM
I repeat, virtually all terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims are due to war and occupation perpetrated by non-Muslims. I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Shukri at April 15, 2005 7:38 PM
Of course the Balkans are a target. We are all aware of the romantic yearnings of jihadists to reclaim the lands their predecessors stole from the native European inhabitants, whether it be in the Balkans or Spain.
Posted by: Mike at April 15, 2005 7:38 PM
Balkans DIDN'T ASKED TO BE INVADED by the hordes of Allah and His Head Hackers. After hundreds of years of paying crippling taxes, not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves from rapacious Muslim masters, having their children forcibly kinapped, their women raped, every kind of cruelty
and injustice inflicted upon them - THE BALKANS NEVER AGAIN WILL BE ENSLAVED BY MUSLIMS!!
at April 15, 2005 8:19 PM
Should read 'kidnapped.'Please note Shukri that all Balkan countries attacked and taken over by
wonderful Islam made NIL progress during 500 years!!
at April 15, 2005 8:28 PM
Let's see, indiscriminate murder in Morroco, Turkey, Bali, Bangladesh, Thailand, Nigeria, Kenya, and do not forget the murder of Bahais and Zorastorians in Iran, Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia, and Iraq (no doubt to blame for the 'occuptation') the ancient synagogue in Tunisia, tourists in Luxor, Cairo, and, of course, those horrible citizens of Beslan who deserved the wrath of Chechen 'extremists'; and this is just to name a few. Of course, Theo Van Gogh and too many fatwas and death threats and failed plots to count worldwide, from Singapore to Manila, to New York, to Europe, one ton of explosive chemicals in London, a plot to bomb a Christmas market in Strausberg): and this is just recent history. We can let little things like the murder of millions of Hindus, Armenians and other assorted kafir slide for the moment.
Yes indeed, there are so many 'oppressors' of Muslims, 'occupiers' of Muslim lands all over the place, who have only themselves to blame for offending this tiny minority of 'extremists'.
Violence has nothing to do with Islam. Can't everybody see that!
Posted by: JTF at April 15, 2005 8:47 PM
Well said JTF. That should be enough to chase the troll Shukri back into his little islamohole.
Posted by: William The Crusader at April 15, 2005 8:53 PM
I repeat, virtually all terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims are due to war and occupation perpetrated by non-Muslims. I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
Kuwait.
at April 15, 2005 9:02 PM
Shukri says:
No, General Borisov. Only countries that take part in invading and/or occupying Muslim countries are likely to be attacked by extremists.
Shukri,
In the civilized world we have freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Wait. Maybe I should start with the concept of a nation-state or the social contract. Never mind.
We don't call France "Holy Catholic France". But it's obvious we should start doing that again as soon as possible.
Posted by: Beagle at April 15, 2005 11:35 PM
The History of the Serbs is one of 500 years of oppression as dhimmies by the Ottoman empire and constant betrayal by the west and the catholic church.
Even the history of the last century reads like a horror story.
I believe that even the word "Slave" is derived from "Slav", the status so long reserved fro the Serb people.
From BAt YEOR at
http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/bat.htm#I
So, is the past always prologue? Are we doomed to remain always prisoners of the same errors? Certainly, if we do not know the past. And this past -- the long and agonizing process of Christian annihilation by the laws of Jihad and dhimmitude -- is a taboo history, not only in Islamic lands, but above all in the West. It has been buried beneath a myth, fabricated by Western politicians and religious leaders, in order to promote their own national strategic and economic interests.
Curiously, this myth started in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 19th century. It alleges that Turkish rule over Christians in its European provinces was just and lawful. That the Ottoman regime, being Islamic, was naturally "tolerant" and well disposed toward its Christian subjects; that its justice was fair, and that safety for life and goods was guaranteed to Christians by Islamic laws. Ottoman rule was brandished as the most suitable regime to rule Christians of the Balkans.
This theory was advanced by European politicians in order to safeguard the balance of power in Europe, and in order to block the Russian advance towards the Mediterranean. To justify the maintenance of the Turkish yoke on the Slavs it was portrayed as a model for a multi-ethnical and multi-religious empire. Of course, the reality was totally different! First the Ottoman Empire was created by centuries of Jihad against Christian populations; consequently the rules of Jihad, elaborated by Arab-Muslim theologians from the 8th to the 10th centuries, applied to the subjected Christian and Jewish populations of the Turkish Islamic dominions. ........
And today History is repeating itself as Islam is sanitized by the west for politico fincancial agndas.
at April 16, 2005 1:49 AM
Well, Shukri and Archangel (Jibreel Farishta, by any chance?), Ramaz has raised pre-9/11 America and France. What of gang rapes going on in the Scandinavian countries? What of continuing terrorist attacks in Spain even after it pulled out of Iraq?
And what of southern Thailand? When the lands south of the Isthmus of Kra fell under the sway of the Thai rulers of Suikhothai and Ayutthaya, they were mostly Hindu and Buddhist; with Islam entering shortly after by way of trade and peaceful da'wa; becoming largely Muslim (at least among ethnic Malays) during the 16th century, while under the Thai kingdom of Ayyuthaya. Those lands remained at least tributary to Thai duynasties (Ayutthaya, Taksin, and Chakkri) until the British detached Kelantan, Perlis, and Trengannu in the 19th century.
Further, Kuala Lumpur is on record that it does not support Pattani/Narathiwat/Satun separatism, and has urged peace. The Royal Thai Government, for its part, is "Buddhist" basically in that the monarch must be a Theravada Buddhist, and the government supports the sangha. It has also worked hard to combat discrimination, and sets the glass ceiling pretty high for its Muslim and Christian minorities. Indeed, not too long ago, the foreign minister was a Muslim from the southern provinces. Part of the RTG's problem is that it knows it needs to go after the terrorists, but wishes to avoid harming ordinary Muslim citizens.
For the record, while I hope OBL's skeleton ends up on display in some US medical museum (if he hasn't been pulverized by a daisy cutter or done in by kidney failure yet) and feel Sodom Insane's catch-me-if-you-can game with the UN inspectors would've probably spooked me as well had I been in Young Bush's place, I've crossed swords with others here over willy-nilly stereotyping of ALL Muslims, and KNOW that the Muslim minorities of China and Cambodia have some very real grievances (some of us who follow a fundamentalistic religion include in those fundamentals an awareness that "the other" can be on the receiving end of a real injustice--it helps when your fundamentals don't include a need to harshly dominate others). I even reported on a few such grievances when I was with the State Department. In about fifty years, I'll probably be dead, but since you may be young enough, look for reporting out of American's diplomatic posts in China 1992-94 when it get declassified.
Posted by: Kepha at April 16, 2005 1:51 AM
Shukri
The truth is
virtually all terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims are due to war and occupation perpetrated by Muslims.
All land outside of Medina was taken by muslims by war and occupation,I invite you to prove me wrong.
at April 16, 2005 2:05 AM
Shiva: exactly.
If non-Muslims subscribed to the same principles, then all non-Muslims in Muslim countries would be justified in attacking Muslims, for invading and occupying their lands.
In any case, as has been mentioned, there are multitudes of attacks on native non-Muslims in Muslim countries by Muslims that would appear to have no connection to war and occupation. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Phillipines, Egpyt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all just off the top of my head.
And, yes, when such attacks occur, they are indeed being justified by Islamic scriptures. Spencer doesn't "justify" these attacks as being Islamic, he reports on how _Muslims_ are justifying them. And asking why, if Islam is the "religion of peace" we keep being told it is, are Muslims so consistently getting it wrong? And why is it so hellishly difficult for peaceful Muslims ("true" Muslims, probably according to Shukri) to counter the Islamic argument of the violent Muslims?
Posted by: spect8or at April 16, 2005 2:19 AM
Shiva: exactly.
If non-Muslims subscribed to the same principles, then all non-Muslims in Muslim countries would be justified in attacking Muslims, for invading and occupying their lands.
In any case, as has been mentioned, there are multitudes of attacks on native non-Muslims in Muslim countries by Muslims that would appear to have no connection to war and occupation. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Phillipines, Egpyt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all just off the top of my head.
And, yes, when such attacks occur, they are indeed being justified by Islamic scriptures. Spencer doesn't "justify" these attacks as being Islamic, he reports on how _Muslims_ are justifying them. And asking why, if Islam is the "religion of peace" we keep being told it is, are Muslims so consistently getting it wrong? And why is it so hellishly difficult for peaceful Muslims ("true" Muslims, probably according to Shukri) to counter the Islamic argument of the violent Muslims?
Posted by: spect8or at April 16, 2005 2:19 AM
Shiva: exactly.
If non-Muslims subscribed to the same principles, then all non-Muslims in Muslim countries would be justified in attacking Muslims, for invading and occupying their lands.
In any case, as has been mentioned, there are multitudes of attacks on native non-Muslims in Muslim countries by Muslims that would appear to have no connection to war and occupation. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Phillipines, Egpyt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all just off the top of my head.
And, yes, when such attacks occur, they are indeed being justified by Islamic scriptures. Spencer doesn't "justify" these attacks as being Islamic, he reports on how _Muslims_ are justifying them. And asking why, if Islam is the "religion of peace" we keep being told it is, are Muslims so consistently getting it wrong? And why is it so hellishly difficult for peaceful Muslims ("true" Muslims, probably according to Shukri) to counter the Islamic argument of the violent Muslims?
Posted by: spect8or at April 16, 2005 2:19 AM
Sheesh, sorry for the triple posting people!
Posted by: spect8or at April 16, 2005 2:25 AM
Bat Yeor places the start of the modern myths of peaceful Islam which we in the west have created, at Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 19th century and the fraudulent acceptance of this myth provided the escape we needed for not poing to the help of the persecuted Chrisitian minorities and the non arab minorities.
We then ignored the trail of blood left by the streams of Christian refugees in Turkey, Iraq and Syria and to counter the realities emrging we in fact reinfoced these myths of tolerance thorough our clergy and academics.
As she says , the myth was to be reiterated in the form of a "multi cultural and religious fraternal state" to replace the State of Israel as per Arafat's UN speech lapped up by the world's politicians.
These readily accepted lies led directly to the destruction of the Lebanese Christians who had turned Beirut into the "Paris of the middle east".
We ignored the credentials of the PLO steeped in the Nazi ideology of Al husseini whose muslims SS troops had slaughtered hundreds of Thousands of Serbs and Jews.
Surprising? NO the well worn lie assisted by the west had worked for a hundred years. Why should it fail now that the oil was really flowing?
So Bat Yeor is so right!
Arafat used the same lies that we had supported in the west for more than a century .
On top of this myth, he placed such embellishments as the concept of a "Palestinian Civilisation" having existed for centuries.
But Arafat's aims were NO Different to the Aims of the Ottamans in the Balkans , which were plainly there for all those who read history to see clearly.
at April 16, 2005 2:34 AM
Dhimmis say: we love Muslims.
http://www.us-islamicworldforum.org/program.php?lang=en
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=14308
Pipes says: make war on Islamofascists.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050415/NEWS01/504150399/1002/NEWS
I say: speak Daniel!!!
Posted by: smokem at April 16, 2005 3:56 AM
Dhimmis say: we love Muslims.
http://www.us-islamicworldforum.org/program.php?lang=en
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=14308
Pipes says: make war on Islamofascists.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050415/NEWS01/504150399/1002/NEWS
I say: speak Daniel!!!
Posted by: smokem at April 16, 2005 3:57 AM
I repeat, virtually all terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims are due to war and occupation perpetrated by non-Muslims. I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
Kuwait.
I guess my answer was correct, seeing that no one has challenge it, especially Shukri.
Posted by: ArchAngel at April 16, 2005 7:23 AM
Kuwait.
I guess my answer was correct, seeing that no one has challenge it, especially Shukri.
I didn't want to reply because the answer was so obvious. But please do tell me, which terrorist attack was it that Kuwait suffered?
If you are referring to Saddam's invasion, then you should know that the US gave permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait by assuring Saddam before his invasion that the US has "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like [Iraq's] border disagreement with Kuwait."
Posted by: Shukri at April 16, 2005 2:01 PM
Muslims were not being oppressed in East Timor, instead they (Indonesian Muslims) were infact oppressing Christians... yet Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda still wanted to blow up the East Timorese.
Posted by: tranmere_rover at April 16, 2005 3:13 PM
Oh....of course Shukri!!! Saying that you have no opinion on a matter is EXACTLY the same as giving permission to one party to take violent action against the other.
It seems that we all misunderstand the Enlgish language as well..........not just Islam.
What a joke. That's like saying a father who takes no side or has no opinion on an argument between two of his children is giving the OK for one of them to get violent.
Posted by: vashine at April 16, 2005 3:34 PM
If you are referring to Saddam's invasion, then you should know that the US gave permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait by assuring Saddam before his invasion that the US has "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like [Iraq's] border disagreement with Kuwait."You can't win with Shukri. If the West gets involved in "Muslim countries" we deserve to be beheaded. If we don't get involved in "Muslim countries" any violent actions they take are our fault.
It's Muslim logic. "We're always right. You're always wrong." "Now get back on your donkey after giving me all your money."
Posted by: Beagle at April 16, 2005 6:48 PM
yeah i heard that meeting took place at area 51 and saddam and bush talked about how they were going to rule the world with alien technology.
Shukri you just keeping making up bullshit as you see fit to justify your religions vile acts.
Anyone else here smell the distinct odor of troll.
Posted by: Pegcity at April 16, 2005 8:19 PM
That was hilarious. The US gave "permission" for Kuwait to be attacked? This is another thing I find surprising, even as a leftist: the US is somehow responsible because they had no opinion on the matter. So if they're isolationist, Americans are evil. If they're not isolationist, they're evil.
So, ultimately, Iraq was not responsible for the invasion of Kuwait. They invaded and all, but it's really the Americans' fault.
Well, heck, since Allah 'allowed' islam to invade all those other countries, maybe it's not islam's fault, but Allah's. Maybe he's the chief idiot in the final analysis. After all, he did tell islam to invade other people's lands(Sura 9).
Tell me Shurki, in your madrassa, did they ever teach any logic classes? You'd fail mine.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 2:15 AM
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)