Robert
This post is very offensive

Posted by: shiva at May 11, 2005 9:32 AM

Yes it is offensive Shiva, especially if one is conversant with English grammar and spelling...very offensive. I guess when one is busy building bombs and prepping for jihad one hasn't got time to hit the books...especially those kafir English books.

Posted by: bevc at May 11, 2005 9:59 AM

Shiva, The spelling and grammer is just terrible, truely offensive.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 11, 2005 10:00 AM

Shiva:

As a great philosopher once remarked to me, "Well, duh."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 11, 2005 10:02 AM

Shiva-

Calls for lying and secretly planning murderous treason always are offensive.

But will the poor jihadi wannabe's going to go to post their terrorist videos and share the online joys of kafir bashing?

And to learn how to spell like a (formerly known as) Prince song title?

U NO what eye mean?

Posted by: BigSleep at May 11, 2005 10:02 AM

Hey folks... ...pretty sure Shiva was only being sarcastic here.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 11, 2005 10:08 AM

waterdragon52
both serious and sarcastic

Posted by: shiva at May 11, 2005 10:21 AM

I don't think we have to worry too much about the the "warrior" above. He'll end up killing himself when he looks down the barrel of his gun to check if it's loaded...

Kil thi durty kafr! Prayz b tu Allah! Jihad i yam paredize bownd!

Posted by: Kemaste at May 11, 2005 10:21 AM

Islamic snuff movies, I bet they do a roaring trade in them.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 11, 2005 10:27 AM

Robert,
Were you able to find out anything about where the wanna be jihadi is located? I'm putting together a package for my senators/congresspeople. If this nitwit is located in the US, I think that message might make a nice addition.

Posted by: treehugger at May 11, 2005 10:31 AM

Treehugger:

Not yet, but I am looking into it.

RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 11, 2005 10:35 AM

He's British. I thought it from the language then on a second read it was confimed "some bengali oldies r mi5 workers"
MI5 - British Intelligence.
If I had to be specific I would say Brick Lane Bengali. About 19, not as bright as ia747, scrawny built, bad haircut.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 11, 2005 10:52 AM

He is definately in Britain as Granny Weathermax has pointed out. Bet he has bad breath too and a beard that refuses to grow on his pimply chin!!

Posted by: Daffersd at May 11, 2005 11:07 AM

I'm sorry, Granny Weatherwax.

Robert, any examples similar to above would be appreciated. I'm compiling information from a variety of sites and sending a ROP (NOT) package to Washington.

Posted by: treehugger at May 11, 2005 11:11 AM

YOU GO, GRANNY! It's Robert for President, Hugh for State, DC for Defense, Sperry for Intelligence, Malkin for Borders, and GRANNYWEATHERWAX for PROFILER!

Wouldn't it be a hoot if somebody in your part of the world actually found this guy and he turned out to be exactly as you described?

Posted by: cubed at May 11, 2005 11:11 AM

Not that Daffersd and I are stereotyping you understand

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 11, 2005 11:11 AM

Granny Weatherwax: I'd say the ranter is not only not as intelligent as ia747, but also much, much, much less intelligent than the old Bengalis he complains about.

I hope that MI5 and Scotland Yard have his address.

Posted by: Kepha at May 11, 2005 11:24 AM

GrannyW has got their number :)

Posted by: dennisw at May 11, 2005 11:32 AM

Johnathan Galt films, eh?

Interesting name. I for one would have trouble connecting it with Jihad. Ayn Rand readers would understand my raising the question Who is John Galt?

Posted by: voletti at May 11, 2005 11:52 AM

Absolutely hilarious. I think we need to start a Jihad on bad spelling and half witted English comprehension amongst our angry bruverrz.

Posted by: Zico at May 11, 2005 12:04 PM

The people who undertook this venture (http://johnathangaltfilms.com/about_us.html) truly deserve a lot of credit for turning the tables on the jihadis and engaging in a bit of "taqqiya" on their own. They performed a great service by showing what the radicals are really preaching while putting on a "why can't we all just get along?" face to those outside their mosques.

To build on voletti's point, let's hope the jihadis never find out who John Galt is.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at May 11, 2005 12:05 PM

I'd have said black rather than Bengali. Probably a drug dealer too. But I'm not a Londoner, so Granny W is probably right.

General question, not unconnected with this - do Americans text each other the way British do?

(Texting = sending SMS on your mobile (cell?) phone.)

A lot of his spelling is as you'd spell it in text messages - I know you do it in emails to, but when texting the words have to be abbreviated otherwise it would take forever (4evr). People (like me) who wouldn't dream of writing 'gr8 2 c u' in a letter, do it on the web because they're in a hurry, and it's what they do when they text.

In other words, he may not be as thick as he seems from his spelling.

Posted by: Interested at May 11, 2005 12:12 PM

Its hard to mak dat mny spreling misstakes
witout do'n it onn porpus. Not only is this guy dangerous...he's missing a few nuts and bolts as well...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 11, 2005 12:26 PM

khushi khushi is Urdu. The half-wit could be Pakistani. Their reference to Bengalis makes me think so, because he is referring to another group, outside his or her own, as it were. As Gina says, it could very well be a girl, there are plenty of psychopaths amongst those raging and frustrated brainwashed petals.

Posted by: Zico at May 11, 2005 12:43 PM

Valid points Gina,
Would it be indiscreet to ask why you think the writer is a girl? I was getting a male vibe, and as I read it the rhythm was the one I hear in and around London. I can say that my reason for saying he was the constant reference to and about "bros". My experience of girl posters is that they refer to the "sisters".

Zico
I didn't realise that khushi khushi was Urdu. I thought it might have been cushti, from Romany, the phrase made popular by only Fools and Horses. As watched by ia747.

Whatever the exact age or sex it's the content that is of most concern.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 11, 2005 1:00 PM

GrannyWeatherwax

If cushti is derived from Romany it is probably derived from the same source as khushi because Romany has, just as the Romany people have, Hindi-Indian roots. Or it could be one of those words that the tommies or merchant sailors picked up from their time spent in India.

Gina

It IS a girl and there are many Pakis in UK, most who do not want to be there but are forced to live there by their parents

I have to disagree with you about that. Pakistani girls are very happy to be in England, it gives them rights and freedoms they never would have in Pakistan, and most Pakistani girls are born in the UK. The shame is that many of them want to Islamify it.

My Indian friends tell me there are a lot of Pakistani women who despise Islam. You never hear about it because it is throat cutting time if they make themselves plain.

I think those girls and women are amongst the bravest in the world.

Posted by: Zico at May 11, 2005 1:38 PM

Thank you Gina. I hope to exchange posts with you here again.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 11, 2005 2:01 PM

Gina

I know about the rage for Jihad amongst the young generation of the Pakistani community, believe me I have no illusion about it, but I have to say you are wrong. Most Pakistani girls in the UK are actually born and raised in England and are happy to live amongst the freedoms and relative luxury of a modern democratic liberal society. It affords them lots of opportunities to carry out dawah, amongst other things. I know, because, well, I know lots of Pakistanis. I'm not disagreeing with you about their rage, I'm just saying that its not because they would rather live in Pakistan than in England.

Posted by: Zico at May 11, 2005 2:06 PM

As for ia666 [beastly boy]
I would like Robert or Geoff to comment about this
A few weeks ago ia666 came here and his opening salvo was

Hello my hate filled brothers and sisters,
I friend of mine directed me to this site. I think I should introduce myself first, I am a young Muslim in the UK, I was born here and I am currently studying at a London University. You can call me Mohammad Yusuf. I have read this article and a few others on this website and to be honest I am not surprised with the level of hate. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005549.php#comments scroll 1/2 down

After a week he went to FFI and started a thread
SALADIN RISES AGAIN!!! All critics of Islam I challenge YOU
where claimed he swept the floor with everybody at JW
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8371&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1560
Scroll to bottom

Then today he edited his opening statement
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8371&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

This why I was a little sarcastic with my first comment on this thread due to the fact that one of my earlier comment was deleted in an earlier thread The Free Muslims March
Robert are you blocking my comments that contain the term muzi
But my comment was also deadly serious as we not only have the foul mouth punks who are to stupid,{but more honest}to use Taquiyah,we have the likes ia666 and Thomas
So even if this poster was offensive at least we know where we stand.The real dangerous ones are those that give us the sweet moderate talk.It is the Thomas,s who the ones that we must be wary of

Posted by: shiva at May 11, 2005 3:48 PM

As a great philosopher once remarked to me, "Well, duh."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 11, 2005 10:02 AM

Very funny, RS

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 11, 2005 4:08 PM

that they are dis-satisfied living in the UK, w/ all of the gov't watching over them, often not able to practise their religion and being forced to stay there by their families

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? There is absolutely no religious oppression taking place in the UK, not a single Muslim in England is being prevented from practising their religion. What these girls are feeling opressed about is being suppressed from practising venomous hate spewing Jihadic philosophy and being prevented from preaching violence. But that is good, such people ought to be monitored and watched over, and they want that feeling, because they want petrol on their flames, so that they can feel it is they who are innocent and justify their psychopathy, feel that they are being suppressed and persecuted when their psychopathy is intrinsic and self contained, it comes from within them. Those complaints are nothing but the squeals of neutered Jihadi psychopaths. A madness and hatred in search of a cause and an enemy.

Keep up the good work Gina, best of luck with all your endeavours.

Posted by: Zico at May 11, 2005 4:08 PM

I still say this is who writes letters like the one the jihadi wrote ---

http://www.animationfactory.com/animations/animals/monkeys/5527b/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 11, 2005 4:38 PM

I do not think that Khusi Khusi (happy happy) are Bengali words. They are infact Hindi / Gujarati words, scripts of which are broadly similar and derived from Sanskrit.. Urdu is no more than Hindi with a very small sprinkling of Persian and Arabic words. After converting to Islam the Muslims of north India still maintain their ancient Indian culture in food, music and language but write Urdu in their masters’ Arabic script. I am told that any Indian who can speak (and write) Hindi can understand Urdu but would not be able to write it in the Arabic script.

Posted by: Londoner at May 11, 2005 7:05 PM

The language used is I believe of the type used in SMS on mobile phones, as a way to keep the cost down.

I may be wrong though.

Posted by: DP111 at May 11, 2005 7:18 PM

Where are Geoff and BigSleep? I miss their humor.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 11, 2005 7:37 PM

Carolyn2:

Maybe they have an actual life? ; - )

I believe that Geoff stated that he is traveling. I hope so, and that he's back soon. Some of his posts are the anti-jihad highlights of my day.

Don't know about BigSleep, but in my long tenure here at JW I've noticed that people seem to post frequently for awhile, then fall back into mostly reading, only commenting occasionally - but they're still there. Others learn all they need to from JW over a period of time and move onto other fora to debate muslims, read in-depth about the subject or become active in other ways, only stopping back from time to time. Still others learn all the basics and don't need to be bombarded by all the gory and disturbing details day in and day out; they're already convinced about the true nature of what we're facing, and filter all the rest of what they hear on a daily basis (from the MSM, for example) through that.

I'm afraid - yes, it's true - that I'm addicted.

Posted by: CGW at May 11, 2005 7:48 PM

Shiva:

As a great philosopher once remarked to me, "Well, duh."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 11, 2005 10:02 AM
ROTFL!!
Gold Star for you!!

HATE TO DO THIS BUT KNOW WILL MAKE YOUR DAY!!

So even if this poster was offensive at least we know where we stand.The real dangerous ones are those that give us the sweet moderate talk.It is the Thomas,s who the ones that we must be wary of

Posted by: shiva at May 11, 2005 03:48 PM

Gold Stay for you today!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight With her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat let not the World be Deceived by them Amen

Posted by: Catherine at May 11, 2005 8:45 PM

This fool and his associates think they're fit to rule the world? It would be comical if they werent so dangerous.

Learn to write and speak coherently first, losers.

Gina: how is banning the hijab preventing Muslim females from practising their religion? To the best of my knowledge, the hijab was invented in Iran during the 1970s to indicate that the wearer did not agree with the westernisation program of the shah. (What did they wear before the hijab was invented?)

The hijab is a sign of opposition to western society - am I right?

Is there some compelling reason why we should feel sympathy because they are not allowed to demonstrate their dislike of the countries where they have come to supposedly start a new life?

They dare to complain and whine when Christians are being persecuted and murdered in every Muslim country on earth?

And why do they need to wear a hijab or any other article of dress in order to worship their god? He must be a very intolerant god (we already know that anyhow)if he refuses to recognise his worshippers without their head covering.

Pathetic. If they dont like it, they should go home to their oh-so-tolerant homelands.

Posted by: DianaC at May 12, 2005 3:12 AM

Gina
Thanks for the detail. My assessment was based on the similarity to the speech patterns I hear around me when I go back to the area my family originate from, which is now the home of mainly Bangladeshi Moslems. You are obviously familiar with an area I have no experience of.

Londoner, nice to meet you again. You answered my question about the direction of Hindi and Gujarati script some months ago, if you recall. I had forgotten the closeness of Romany and Hindi when I posted above, and the word cushti has become so familiar in recent years (cf chav) that I did not look past current English vernacular.

But whatever the origins of the poster, it's the content that is the concern.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 12, 2005 3:17 AM

Gina

Loads of Muslim girls in England wear Hijab, including in Manchester, a city I know well. Her protestations of not being free to practice her religion or wear hijab should be taken with a grain of salt, they are the febrile imaginings of a Jihadi psycho wanting to find opression and justification for her wicked worldview.

Posted by: Zico at May 12, 2005 7:46 AM

while one might not appreciate Islam nowadays, surely their right to peacefully practice it should not be at issue

Gina - It is true that the Koran commands Muslim women to cover themselves while out in public} 003.059 and 024.031 from the Koran will give the proof.

If you defend their right to 'practice' their religion - how can you say you don't support these practices also?...

023.056 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hands possess,- for in their case they are free from blame

033.050 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makka with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers at large

033.051 Thou mayest defer the turn of any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose turn thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them

Pay close attention to the following:

033.052 It is not lawful for thee to marry more women after this, nor to change them for other wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess as handmaidens

They are permitted to trade back and forth the ones they took as prisoners of war [after killing their men] - as though they are merchandise just so they can have their way with them. [justifiable mass rape]

Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 10:17 AM

How many leaders in the non-Muslim nations have daughters?

Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 10:18 AM

Thanks for posting this Robert.

It is very instructive to read the comments of crude Islamic fanatics. These are the sort of Islamic people who cut throats, rape "infidels" and offer aid and comfort to terrorists. They may not be terribly bright but they are part of the *enemy* -- the pool from which fanatics for "martyrdom operations" are drawn.

I use these sorts of postings to illustrate the the enemy's implacable hatred.

I think it is especially important to discus this sort of thing with young naive Americans who want to believe in the goodness of humanity.

If any Mohammedan adherents read this post, be advised that some of us are working to begin a new Reconquista and a new "1492".

Posted by: info_tech_guy at May 12, 2005 10:50 AM

I just visited the "Reviving Islam" website mentioned at the beginning of this article (See http://www.revivingislam.com/). Take note of the illustration top-right on the web page. It's a fort in the Islamic fashion. Isn't that interesting when one recalls the translation of "al Qaeda" is "fort". Hmmm....

Posted by: info_tech_guy at May 12, 2005 11:48 AM

defending your right does not in any way mean I support what you do; DO NOT ASSUME! Wearing hijab was the crux of this discussion

Then Gina? you need to do some more research on just what it means for the rest of society to be forced into accepting such a tradition - even in the schools - because it is a part of an Islamic command.

I do understand the argument you have presented in that these people have feelings.

I agree. If Americans turn on them - I would be dead set against it!!!!

And will certainly help those who come to me and are scared - because I would want to be treated the same way.

But it is the teachings of the Koran that have to be attacked! non stop! and the covering of the Muslim women is heling to spread the rest of the laws of Islam.

Thay can not be separated.

Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 2:11 PM

They would be welcomed - BUT NOT THEIR god

Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 2:13 PM

Gina

mi5 has visited the homes of many of these girls, and logged their phone records and computer trails merely b/c they are SO Muslim. This, Zico, is wrong

Gina, this is nonsense. Nobody is going to be trailed just because they wear ijab, there are always reasons for it. As I said, that is just the febrile imaginings of stupid Jihadis who want to profess their 'oppression'. Do you see the point I am making? Its so clear. I am beginning to think you are a troll, the way you keep reciting their nonsense.

Posted by: Zico at May 12, 2005 2:16 PM

I take that back Gina, I'm sorry. That was said in bad faith and in haste, I apologise for doubting your good character.

Posted by: Zico at May 12, 2005 2:19 PM

Here is a list of rules for the revivingislam forum:

+++++

Forum Terms & Rules

Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser.

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message.

The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

You Agree that you are a Muslim and not working for a government agent.

You agree that you will not revile any part of Islaam, including the prophets.

Lastly, you agree that you will not promote the intentional murder of women and children.

By Agreeing to this, you are in contract with RevivingIslam.com.

Posted by: Zico at May 12, 2005 2:21 PM

Lastly, you agree that you will not promote the intentional murder of ''''women and children. ''''

What about the men?

Oh Zico - Take a look at that statement!

You to Gina!

It is SOOOOOOOOOO deceptive - and here is why:

From the Koran...

023.056 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hands possess,- for in their case they are free from blame

033.050 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makka with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers at large

033.051 Thou mayest defer the turn of any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose turn thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them

Pay close attention to the following:

033.052 It is not lawful for thee to marry more women after this, nor to change them for other wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess as handmaidens

They are permitted to trade back and forth the ones they took as prisoners of war [after killing their men] - as though they are merchandise just so they can have their way with them.

[justifiable mass rape]

The American men are to be slaughtered [until the land is thoroughly subdued 008.067 ] and their wives and daughters raped by Muslim men - as they please.

AND THAT IS WHY THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE NOT TO BE SLAUGHTERED!

Can it get any sicker than that?

Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 5:06 PM

Gina

I am not disputing your principles. I am pointing out your gullibility in believing what a bunch of self pitying Jihadi teenage girls pumped up on their own self created victim hood tell you about being trailed merely for wearing a hijab. They are bullshitting. That’s all. England isn’t like that. If they are being monitored they deserve it.

Posted by: Zico at May 12, 2005 6:51 PM

If there is a need for surveilance then I am very glad if the Intelligence Service is on the case.

But are you sure these girls are not just experiencing Eve-teasing, as described on the "Hijab in Norway and Pakistan" thread on DW?
Or are they generating their own smokescreen to cover up their boyfriends? Which as modest hijabettes they should not really have. But I have seen as much snogging of young boys on the train by girls in hijab as by non moslem girls. I saw one once in full chador all over her bloke like a rash, her hands in places I didn't really want to see so soon after breakfast.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 13, 2005 2:47 AM