Joe Kaufman, ..."Chairman of Americans Against Hate"

He hasn't been on JW then...he doesn't think that the infedel can hate too.

"It is disgraceful for Ahmed Bedier to make light of a cold-blooded terrorist organization, as he has about the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is offensive to the memories of all those that died at the hands of this monstrous group!

Yes...Yes....Yes but is anything gonna be done about it. NO....mus;lims will say about Jihad supporters

Hush! my dear, lie still and slumber;
Gibreel guards thy bed!
Heavenly blessings without number
Gently falling on thy head.
and not a hair of thine will be out place.

Posted by: Naseem at December 13, 2005 7:06 AM

CAIR has a half hour show on our local PBS station. I'll be going without a tote bag for another year.

Posted by: Beagle at December 13, 2005 7:18 AM

The Irish American people have been donating monies to the IRA via Norad and other "charitable organizations" for many years while they blew the English and the Irish like.

The IRA continue to murder, rob banks and dish out "punishment beatings" to the local people and refuse to acknowledge the local authorities.

So I don't think that you make to much of this issue without smacking of hypocrisy, especially since many still fund these activities naively thinking that they are helping with "the war back home"

At least Bedier has changed his stance, that is something to celebrate, not damn him for.

Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 13, 2005 7:36 AM

Naseem,

Your post above was a bit cryptic. Could you possibly be implying you're critical of Bedier and others like him?

Posted by: kafira at December 13, 2005 7:46 AM

Naseem is the typical Islamic triumphalist, when it's not complaining about "oppression." Shame / honor, shame / honor, they never know.

Posted by: Beagle at December 13, 2005 7:52 AM

"CAIR has a half hour show on our local PBS station."
-- from a posting above

More information about that PBS station would be welcome. Then others can be alerted to withhold money from that station, and from other PBS stations until something is done about the offending one. Moral arguments will hardly matter. Only denying money now counts. Not nearly enough denial of that kind is going on. For that matter, not nearly enough giving to the right places -- I have one in mind -- is going on.

Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2005 8:20 AM

Your wish is my seriously-considered suggestion, Hugh.

WMFE, DhimmiBS

Posted by: Beagle at December 13, 2005 8:25 AM

Islamists call for elimination
of Christians
Pakistani Muslims also want to see man charged with blasphemy hanged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jeremy Reynalds
© 2005 Assist News Service

Militant Islamists in Pakistan have called for the elimination of Christians and the public hanging of a Christian accused of blasphemy.

According to a news release from human rights organization Christian Solidarity Worldwide, or CSW, about 3,000 Muslims gathered for Friday prayers at the Jamia Mosque in Sangla Hill on Dec. 2. It was at that location three weeks earlier that three churches, a school, a convent and Christian homes were attacked in Pakistan's worst outbreak of anti-Christian violence since 2002.

CSW reported that Islamic leaders using loudspeakers urged Muslims to rise up and eliminate Christians. They also passed a resolution demanding that Yousaf Masih, a Christian accused of desecrating the Quran, be publicly hanged.

According to CSW, a Dec. 2 report by the Catholic Church's National Commission for Justice and Peace stated that the speakers also demanded the unconditional release of the 88 Muslims who have been detained by the Pakistani authorities and accused of carrying out the Nov.12 attack on Sangla Hill, about 140 miles south of Islamabad.

CSW reports that on Dec. 9, more than 2,500 Muslims again gathered at Friday prayers to repeat their demands for violence and the release of the 88 accused of attacking Christians and their property.

On Dec. 4, CSW reported, the National Commission for Justice and Peace organized a National Consultation meeting on "Ending Religious Intolerance." The conference in Lahore brought together religious and civil society leaders from around the country, including representatives of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, the Christian Study Centre, the Commission for Peace and Human Development and the Centre of Legal Assistance and Settlement.

The consultation resulted in a joint resolution, which described the Sangla Hill violence as, CSW reported, "merely one manifestation of the alarming level of religious intolerance prevailing in the country, being fuelled by hate speech and discriminatory laws."

The resolution accused the Pakistani authorities of having "done nothing to defuse the tension," and of "failing to repair the situation." It claimed the government was "not admitting the facts and is rather protecting the instigators of mob violence." Procedural delays have meant vital evidence has been lost, which has made the judicial process "ineffective," the resolution claimed.

The delegates at the consultation urged the government to bring the perpetrators of the violence in Sangla Hill to justice "without any delay," CSW reported, release innocent blasphemy prisoners such as Masih, who is "clearly victimized due to his religion," and repeal the blasphemy laws and other discriminatory laws.

Posted by: treehugger at December 13, 2005 10:25 AM

I think we need to listen to the question asked, "...so Ahmed, take your CAIR hat off for a minute, if he(Al Arian) was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, doesn't that seem immoral, in your opinion?"

Ahmed's response: "To a certain degree, before 1995, there was nothing immoral about it...there was two sides to every story..."

In all honesty, I think it may be a slip of the tongue because he then went on to mention it being illegal before 1995.

Having reviewed these comments, it seems that he does think, at least to a 'certain degree' that associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is immoral. He then went on to mention that in 1995, it was made illegal by the Clinton Administration.

I think Robert is twisting the truth a bit by adding the following dramatic words "Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it." I don't see that anywhere in the video on CAIR's website.

If I missed it, please let me know where I've missed it. The comments made by Bedier starts at approximately 7:44 of the video on their website.

---
Bedier's answer is startling, given the fact that, prior to 1995, Palestinian Islamic Jihad took credit for five terrorist attacks, which resulted in the murders of eight innocent people. This includes a suicide bombing in the town of Netzarim Junction, in November of 1994.
---

If this is a trial of morality, then I can see us taking an issue with his comments, but there is nothing illegal of what he said. This is America folks, we are still living in a democracy and everyone has a right to his or her opinion, as long as they don't disobey the laws.

---
On December 7th, the day prior to the TV show, Bedier didn't hide his praise for the acquittal of Al-Arian. He said that the verdicts were "a huge relief, and people are just jubilant."
---

And so what? Al Arian was found not guilty, not by Bedier or Arabs, but by American Citizens! I don't see a big deal of him being happy. Am I missing something here??? Are we to hate Arabs or anyone who gets justice in our system? I'm actually getting a bit concerned about this author's innuendo.

Digging further, I came across this article mentioned by CAIR, which is very surprising to me.

I tried to get hold of Joe Kaufman for a response to CAIR's allegation of:

Joe Kaufman (www.joe4rep.com), who heads the Florida-based Citizens Against Hate and is co-founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of South Florida, has in the past promoted the terrorist organizations Kach and Kahane Chai on his website.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Kahane Chai and Kach are known terrorist organizations and are banned in the United States.

SEE: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm

If Joe is indeed promoting such terrorists, then he himself should be silent and not be hypocritical.

Regards,
Paul

Posted by: paul_benheimer at December 13, 2005 1:06 PM

paul_benheimer said "According to the U.S. Department of State, Kahane Chai and Kach are known terrorist organizations and are banned in the United States."

Number of civilians killed by Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and other Islamic terrorist groups: over 10,000.

Number of civilians killed by Kahane, Kach, and other Jewish terrorist groups: 0.

According to the document you offered, Kahane was designated a terrorist group because they offered verbal support for a man who had killed civilians. The President of Iran does that several times a week, and he's still invited to speak at the U.N.

Posted by: special_guest at December 13, 2005 4:17 PM

CAIR's allegation is false. Never have I once promoted either of those two organizations, on my website or anywhere else.

Furthermore, Bedier's statement, as shown on the press release, is exactly as stated on the video. Evidently CAIR, before removing the video completely from their site, edited out the quote. The full unedited video can be seen at www.americansagainsthate.com.

Posted by: Joe Kaufman at December 13, 2005 5:14 PM

If Islamic Jihad had not been a terrorist organization before 1995 what happened before then would be largely irrelevant. What matters is that Islamic jihad is NOW a full-fledged terrorism-mass murdering outfit. Even if it had not been not a terrorism organization at that time (which is almost certainly a lie), it is NOT in need of apologists! Those who would spread propaganda about the morality of Islamic Jihad are themselves immoral (unless you are among those who believe killing is a blessed event to allah).

And such a person as Bedier probably would find ways to whitewash such acts of jihadism as Muslims raiding a school and stabbing hundreds of schoolchildren to death and other such staggering atrocities committed by jihadist organizations. If Islamic Jihad is not immoral by such a person's standards, most likely neither is any other jihadist/terrorism organization or their acts of jihad (or more accurately terrorism).

Like I always say "NEVER LISTEN TO ANYTHING A MUSLIM SAYS!" And that goes double for the CAIR!!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 13, 2005 5:54 PM

The link to the original article is defunct now apparently, so I can only rely on the quoted parts of the original article. But what is interesting to me is that Muslims such as Bedier, and all his fellow apologists in the west, apparently don't realize what they have wrought, from a moral perspective. Because clearly the west is now under assault, in the form of an invasion, by the Muslim world - 20 million strong at minumum, possibly the largest migration of humans in several centuries, growing by the day, and posing a definite threat to the inhabitants of the west, as the news coming from Europe, and now Australia, amply illustrates. I dare say, in fact, that there is a Muslim "occupation" of many western cities, in the form of "no-go zones", from which westerners are forced to flee. So, when the westerners start disguising themselves in burkhas and penetrating mosques in the west and blowing themselves up along with as many Muslims as they can, I trust that we will hear plenty about "root causes" and apologies for terrorism on behalf of those who feel themselves pushed from their lands. It doesn't matter that much of this mass immigration has taken place within a legal framework, anymore than it matters to the terrorist apologists that Israel itself was founded within a legal framework. What matters is how people feel. What matters is people's anger. I look forward especially to hearing those forthcoming apologies (from a moral POV, mind you) for western suicide bombers from the mouths of Muslims themselves, as well as from their western media apologists.

Posted by: Caroline at December 13, 2005 8:33 PM

On the face of things, certain postings here and elsewhere seem to be the epitomy of reason and logic -- parsing dates, and analyzing the exact language used in determining whether this or that Jihadi group is illegal or not, is immoral or not...

Somewhere between the first tower being hit and when it fell, I lost the need to differentiate between this or that Muslim pretext for this or that action... It no longer was relevant to me, and no longer important to parse their words...

What WAS clear, on that fine September day, was that the Muslim ummah had declared war on America... This Muslim ummah never issued any death "fatwa" against Bin Laden, despite their copious lies and denials that his actions had nothing to do with Islam. This Muslim ummah never put up reward money for his capture. There is still no reward extant in the Muslim world (that I am aware of) for his head. If the Saudis were the slightest bit truthful (something they appear to be incapable of...) and are serious that Bin Laden is their mortal enemy, that he also poses a threat to the well being of their "kingdom", then where is the Saudi reward for his capture? Where is the evidence that he has attacked members of the "Royal" family which rules Saudi Arabia? Of course there has been nothing... Not from the Saudis, not from the ummah... This also applies to nearly every other attack by "radical" Muslims on hapless non-Muslims the world over. The Muslim ummah is silent and complacent. It is fair, therefore, to consider the entire Islamic ummah collectively responsible for the actions of the Jihadis of the world.

Also, I now consider each denial by a Muslim that there is link between Islam and the spiraling number of atrocities to be an act of Jihad, and act of war. He further hammers the nails into the coffin of Muslim culpability in the larger Jihad, his words are meant to deflect, meant to confuse, meant to distract and mislead the non-Muslim world...

In the days subsequent to 9/11 we have witnessed a complete complacency in the larger Muslim community with acts of terror conducted for the furtherance of Islamic goals -- whatever they may be... We are all familiar with seeing Muslim spokespersons only giving lip service to the idea that killing for Islam is repugnant. We see them parsing words, placing clauses in their "condemnations" which render them meaningless or ambiguous... We have only seen a semblance of clarity when Islamic atrocities kill and maim Muslims... never when these actions are limited to "infidels", and especially Jews.

I no longer need to parse the words of Muslims. I don't need to understand their recondite grievances, or their Byzantine pretexts for their actions and triumphal claims. I don't feel a need any longer to differentiate between the blather being uttered one individual or another, by one group or another -- their words, reasoning, motives, and attititudes are all equally unimportant to me now. I no longer need to delve into the arcana of their vile superstition, their cultural vendettas or to further familiarize myself with their doctrinal hatred and fantasies world domination... It is sufficient for me to:

1. Observe the horrors and ugliness which are replete in every Muslim nation and every Muslim community on earth...

2. Observe the atrocities they perpetrate against each other and especially against non-Muslims wherever and whenever Islam rears its ugly head...

3. Observe that Muslims are fundamentally required by the inflexible dictates of their putrid religion to promote and spread Islam whenever and however they might...

4. Observe that Islam is completely inimical to my culture, my desired form of governance, and everything I hold dear...

5. Observe that Islam and Muslims appear to be beyond redemption -- incurable, past hope, lost... Muslims have so far shown no capacity and no inclination to modify their religion, to credibly contest the doctrine of violent Jihad, or willingly assimilate their barbaric primitivism with the modern world --

As such, it is fair to consider Muslims as mortal enemies. It is fair to consider Islam to be an antipodal ideology which menaces our well being, and the survival of our nations. Muslims, having refused to bend their fulminating religion into a form which can exist with the rest of us, are forcing our hand... And we are running out of options. If I were a Muslim, I'd begin to get a little worried -- so far we have seen the worst they have to offer -- and although I am certain they can harm us further, and in ways which we can barely imagine or countenance, are they aware of the consequences if Muslims insist on defiling us further? Do they have any idea what the Western world is capable of when roused to the full heights of its wrath?

Posted by: jsla at December 13, 2005 10:32 PM

jsla said:it is fair to consider Muslims as mortal enemies.
You know, I agree. But, truthfully, it is difficult to go through life hating so many people. i have a few muslim friends. But, we can only be friends so long as we don't discuss politics, religion, or the news on TV.I don't know why us jihad watch guys are a minority. honestly, I don't get it at all. truly, a crazy world.
But I do know this: we cannot cower. we must bear arms and prepare. we must make our voices heard. and, we must network with anti-muslim forces around the world.

Posted by: templar at December 13, 2005 11:37 PM

templar said:

"i have a few muslim friends."

Since 9/11 I keep reading stories about these Muslim friends that people had. Things like, I never knew he was involved with those people. I never knew he believed we were infidels. blablabla

Basically the Quran teaches Muslims it is good to cloud the infidels mind so that they can be killed. All types of lying and obfuscation are perfectly OK if it is in the interests of Jihad. Actual terrorists are taught to MAKE FRIENDS to maintain their cover just like our old spy games.

Your Muslim friends may very well BE GOOD FRIENDS, or not. Unfortuantely, due to the teachings of their very own, you CANNOT TRUST THEM. If it will advance the Jihad they can even lie to other Muslims and it is fine!!

Posted by: KuhnKat at December 14, 2005 4:39 AM

Naseem,

Your post above was a bit cryptic. Could you possibly be implying you're critical of Bedier and others like him?
Posted by: kafira [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 13, 2005 07:46 AM

Kafira:

I think Naseem is saying two things -- that Kaufman should be cognizant of hate-filled non-Muslims, some of whom show up on this site (e.g.: Lord Lucan), and agrees that Muslims are guilty of giving moral support to jihad.

Unbridled: Naseem's not always easy to understand but she's no clown. Living in Pakistan, she may actually be taking on significant risks by signing on here and acknowledging the duplicity of her government on various matters, support for the invasion of Iraq (which she did after 7/7) and her opposition to violence and religious persecution.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 14, 2005 6:55 AM

KuhnKat - please take a cold bath and wipe the froth from your mouth. Musilms are human beings that live breath and love.

Sure they are taught some odd things in our opinon, but in thier POV we are taught some very odd things in return. It doesn't make them inhuman monsters.

Have you considered that assertion that they are all monsters are is analogous to how some think about Jews?

Chill out, your paranoid makes you sound like Adolf.

Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 14, 2005 3:56 PM

Moderation_is_key said "Have you considered that assertion that they are all monsters are is analogous to how some think about Jews?"

That moral equivalency is disgusting. Jews have been accused of drinking the blood of babies, of secretly running the world, of killing Jesus, and many other things that have no basis in reality.

Muslims have done the things that jsla, templar, and KunhKat said (murder, rape, steal), and more importantly, they did it in the name of Islam, and they quoted their holy book to justify their actions.

Perhaps you have examples of Jews actually drinking the blood of babies? And how they quoted from the Torah to justify it? Then you can make this analogy.

Furthermore, you don't say what you disagree with KunhKat about, other than to call him a frothing racist. Name calling is not debating.

To quote KunhKat, "All types of lying and obfuscation are perfectly OK if it is in the interests of Jihad."

To quote the Qur'an:
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
Qur’an 9:3 “And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Pilgrimage is that Allah and His Messenger dissolve treaty obligations with the Pagans.”
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”
Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”
Tabari VIII:17 “The Muslims and polytheists stayed in their positions for twenty nights with no fighting except for the shooting of arrows and the siege. When the trial became great for the people, the Messenger sent for the leaders of the Ghatafan [Meccan comrades]. He offered them a third of the date harvest of Medina on condition that they leave. The truce between the sides progressed to the point of drawing up a written document, but there was no witnessing or firm determination to make peace; it was only a matter of maneuvering.”

Maybe you can point out the statement of KunhKat's that is not true, and throw in a little evidence to back up your claims?

Posted by: special_guest at December 14, 2005 4:31 PM

Robert Says

Yet CAIR will continue to get a free pass from the mainstream media as a neutral civil rights organization.

The MSM takes it's lead from the government, I look to the administration for leadership here, after all it has led us so many places, that we didn't want to go. So why not now lead is the direction of uncloaking CAIR and the MAS, AMC etc... ooops sorry I forgot that Grover Abudullah Norquists Islamic Institute is the muslim arm of the American Muslims Society.

Bad idea on my part..can't step on the toes of conservatives, nor hamper the Saudi funds that flow into the RNC...that would be, well, un American and liberal.

Posted by: Nariz at December 14, 2005 9:39 PM

Attention Moderation is key:

Muslims are members of the world's oldest and deadliest cult. This cult has virtual control of what they believe, think, and do. One of the things Islam forces its followers to do is attack non-Muslims. Islam goes so far as to legalize and legitimize murder. YOU, moderation, could --and may well be for all you know-- targeted for murder. Three years ago two Arabs in a California city came after me with knives. Your family could be targeted for murder too. Or your friends. You are not safe from the workings of Islamic doctrine--not in America. Possibly NOT anywhere. I refuse to "chill out."

Americans deserve to live in a world free of being terrorism targets. If that means destroying Islam, then so be it. The followers of Islam are NOT in your square. They are forbidden to be. THAT is one purpose of Islam.

Muslims are NOT permitted to question Islam. They have no means of changing it. Worse yet, Islam, being totalitarian in nature, is run by imams who can blackmail these people into committing acts of violence against non-muslims anywhere and at any time. Even if they don't want to. Muslims can be killed for refusing to participate in jihadist warfare.

What the Muslim may personally think and feel is of no consequence to the world's Islamic leaders. They will force them to carry out islamic doctrines no matter what. Moderation will not help us in this matter at all.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 14, 2005 11:38 PM

Hi pythagoras and special_guest,

Thanks for your feedback.

I know for certain that there are Muslims (mostly men) out there that read from religious texts and see me as worthless scum who actively wants to destroy their culture, rape their women and eat their babies.

My objection is to the SHOUTING at templar because they claim to have Muslim friends - YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM!!! Who can you trust? Your own brother? Your Mother? I simply claimed that Muslims are human beings, not monsters.

From what background do I make these wild comments? I occasionally travel in the Middle East and I have spent a month in Indonesia meeting and chatted to the locals. I dodge suicide bombers in my home city and I lived with Muslims while at University.

I know for certain that there are Muslims (mostly the angry men) out there that read from religious texts and see me as worthless scum who actively wants to destroy their culture, rape their women and eat their babies.

My comment is that that not all people that called themselves Muslim are like that. To think that way is utter paranoia and makes you forget this mortal enemy is still human.

Two things greatly worry me: Moderate Muslims whom I know are scared to speak out against the non-moderates, the more religious, the more extreme. This is for fear of rejection, being labelled “not a true Muslim” from their communities. Basically they don't want their mother and sisters being disabused for their views.

The second thing that I'm terrified by is that how many Muslims I've spoken to around the world that honestly believe that the CIA and Mossad planned the 7/11 attacks and the genuine belief the Jews and the Christians are ganging up to get them. This belief is fuelled by highlighting any thing we do that can be seen to be hypocritical - this includes invading countries to get better, cheaper access to the oil that we need to run our economies, while claiming to be doing it for the locals.

There are two ways to win this war of minds: “KILL THEM ALL!!!” or show them a better way. It would appear that Kuhnkat and yourself subscribe to former and shun the later. If this is true we can look forward to the world going up in flames … again.

If you are going to get on to a high horse, make sure it’s a steed, at the moment America looks like it is riding a crippled pony.

Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 15, 2005 10:53 AM

Hi Caroline,

Thank you for taking the time to continue this conversation.

I was partly teasing when I said that it was complimentary, at first I thought that you were calling me a hypocrite. But I read the text and it makes absolute sense to me. Morals are relative, for instance didn't a 12 year old girl get married in Alabama? That disgusts me ... what about you?

"Unless that is, you have no moral objection to the practice of slavery, female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexuals, cannibalism, the stoning of adulterers, the Indian practice of Sati and so on, let alone your neighbor's desire to come over and have sex with your 5 year old daughter."

I looked outside my front door and didn't see of these things happening, you must live in a really rough neighbourhood ...

Of course there are countries where these things do happen, there always has been. Personally I don't visit them, I would like to say that I don't help them economically, but I do some, each time I put petrol in my car. If it weren't for this cruel twist of fate they would remain powerless backward hell holes.

"you think you've stumbled across a great moral insight"

I like this site, I read the news on it daily. I’m very concerned about what is happening in this world, I like to be informed. I’ve only just started to read the comments pages and some people here seem to be angry beyond all comprehension and have lost all sense of objectivity. Others haven’t and manage an intellectual discourse.

I think that you are just fired up on moral and righteous indignation.

Last year I visited Bali, I made friends with some Muslim girls from Jakaka. They were lovely nice people. One had a family and was out with the 'girls' for the weekend while the husband looked after the kids. None of them took their religion too seriously, but they still called themselves "Muslim". In fact we still exchange email on occasion.

Take a chill pill and calmly repeat:

“Not all Muslims are evil.”

Then I'd be happy you aren't an extremist yourself.

Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 16, 2005 9:15 PM