Test.

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 17, 2006 7:53 AM

99% of the muslims are crazy and they give the rest a bad rep. - Uncle Dirty, NYC

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 17, 2006 8:20 AM

Biological weapons cannot always be contained and localised. Despite their ease of use the risk of using a communicable BW could be very dangerous to its users especially if you live in the typical Middle eastern habitat and I doubt whether Jihadist have sufficient knowledge or skill to immunise their own people against such a weapon. So this could be very counterproductive
and hence I doubt that they will use one such in an organised attack.

But the use of localised BW such as Anthrax sprays/dust or toxins such as Botulinum toxin in water supplies is quite possible and this is a definite risk and the responsibility would be very hard to pin down accurately.

As there is no morality in Dar al-Harb there is no reason not to use this. But it dosen't look that good on al Jazeera unless they acknowledge responsibility. Then it is quite possible that the USA (not the gutless EU) could do likewise in return and this could be catastrophic to the jihadists as the west could do it a lot more efficiently.

What is much more likely is a large series of small localised but widespread attacks all over the west with panic everywhere and no responsibility claimed. All we would hear would be the useful Imam hogwash about "divine retribution" for fornication etc. (they really have this thing about other people having sex yet breed like flies themselves??).
However if this happened sufficiently then I am certain that similar retribution would occur in return. So, again possibly selfdefeating in that it has to be big enough to work and that will tempt like retaliation.

The whole point of nuclear weapons despite their complexity is that they are local, very good on TV(big cloud, nice flash and loud bang). have lots of gory post explosion al Jazeera potential and can kill a lot of unbelievers very quickly.

As jihadist have this thing about being TV and camcorder stars I really do think that this is much more likely in the future.

They wont do it to the EU, Russia or China as it may swing the votes to antiIslam. They wont do it to the USA as may they get some of it back. So where will they explode one? It would have to be someone aligned with the USA. Someone without nuclear weapons themeselves. Somone isolated from the rest of the world especially the islamic part of it and somewhere full of unbelievers; Australia's east coast would be perfect and this is my expected target one of Sydney, Newcastle or Brisbane. My expectation is Newcastle.

However if we look at the lunatic side of Islam there is always the possibility that some unstable islamic biologist with access to some dreadful biological agents (Ebola) could infect himself and walk around New York etc. and create a worldwide epidemic which would be in the subcontinent and Europe overnight. This would be a spontaneous unorganised act of jihadic suicide
with absolutely no care about the consequences and the cost to the whole world could be horrific. This is the really scary possibility and there is no defence except no Muslims in such labs with access and regular psychiatric evaluation of all others who have access.

Posted by: Zathras at January 17, 2006 8:38 AM

Robert said he would ban anyone who mentions nuking Muslims or any Muslim nation or group. I won't advocate any such thing. But I can't help wondering. What do you do with people who are determined to use WMD against you and who, unlike the Soviets, cannot be deterred through retaliation? Who have shown a clear taste for suicide and taking their own people down with them (human shields and so forth)? Just a rhetorical question. Kind of the elephant in the room, so to speak, which everyone ignores. No decent person can even mention what might conceivably be the only possible solution, depending on circumstances, unless one is willing to place faith in God and hope that Jesus comes down from the skies on a cloud or something. I'm not betting on that.

Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective. Any other solution?

Posted by: Benjamin at January 17, 2006 8:41 AM

Anyone but a fool should understand that the existential war in which we find ourselves has changed all the rules. Thus when, for politicial gain, politicians play games with the borders, with eavesdropping laws, with immigration, with outing official secrets and so on, they are essentially handing us over to them, our enemies, on a silver platter. Stupid, stupid people!

Posted by: epg at January 17, 2006 9:06 AM

Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective. Any other solution?

A whole lot of covert sabotage would be a start. That would be both technical, as in making things already in Iran not work, and logistical, infiltrating and otherwise stifling illicit supply lines.

The one problem: this will requires "human intelligence" (interpersonal contacts on the ground), and many convincing speakers of Farsi.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 17, 2006 10:02 AM

"Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective. Any other solution?"

yeah. Mossad hit squads. shock and awe series of assassinations.

bump bump bump bump bump bump ...

it'll be utterly unrelenting - it'll make the post-Munich thing look like a mere skirmish.

that's my best guess i suppose.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 10:27 AM

In a previous posting elsewhere on this site I reminded everybody that the risks of allowing Iran to continue to process nuclear material are not just that Iran could manufacture a nuclear bomb, but that the substances involved, such as plutonium, are not only dangerous because of their radioactivity, and nuclear potential, but are also the most poisonous substances known to mankind. A very, very little of these substances scattered into a western city would kill millions very, very quickly whilst leaving the city intact. What a photoshoot opportunity that would be! My real worry is that there already exists a Mohammedan nation with this capability - Pakistan.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 17, 2006 10:31 AM

Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective. Any other solution?

Yes, but it’s something drastically different.

Okay, if you're hunting down a serial killer, you've got to think like him, right? In essence, to deal with the crazy-minded Muslims who take reality and put it on it's head, we've got to get crazy and think up something so totally bizarre and out of left field that there's simply no way anyone could possibly believe it -and they'll actually believe it!

Really, you hear it all of the time from their part of the world –when they’re hit with a tsunami, it’s the West’s fault, but when we get hit with Katrina …that’s our fault, too! It’s as if they can create the most bizarre scenarios and, given a little bit of jaw-flapping treatment and having repeated it often enough, they’ll twist reality to suit their needs and they all buy it. It’s sickening. It’s time to fight taquiyya with taquiyya and throw truth out the window!

Here's the thought process behind this strange idea before hitting you with it: part of their hostility for us has to be how they've been left out from the modern world and mankind's achievements. The only way they've managed to spread and gain anything is by force, after all. Maybe 1 or 2 Nobel Peace Prizes throughout the award's history while it's dominated by westerners, the West has sent men to the moon, put probes on Mars, slammed a probe into a comet, landed another on Titan ...the West is pretty amazing! They're capable of some amazing achievements, technology and inventions!

Taking all of that into mind, it was Hugh one time who posted the question: 'how do you fight an enemy who's not only not afraid to die, but wishes it?' Good question!

Here's the answer: you make it so they don't want to die. Make them fear death.

How, right? Yeah, I've pondered it and I've come up with an idea that's so totally unrealistic and irrational ...that it just might work! Basically, we 'leak' out the information that America has a satellite just outside the earth's atmosphere that has a very special, unique technological advancement: it sucks up souls in transit to heaven. Nice, huh? It's a goofy idea and it's really pretty damn stupid, but it's just SO goofy and SO stupid that they'll believe it and think twice before blowing their Allah-worshipping butts up!

Details to be worked out later, of course. Maybe something about scientists finding that a person weighs a few grams less after death and work into it some of their Muslim mumbo-jumbo for added effect (I heard that they believe the soul is housed in the chest or neck or something ...? I don't know, but add it in there, anyways) and lo and behold less and less muzzies popping like Jiffy Pop popcorn because they don't want to be deprived of their final destination! Brilliant!

Conspiracy theorists will love it! The government makes the perfect bad guy, so spread around that Muslim souls are being filtered and taken away before finding paradise and the government's experimenting on them -or maybe we're inventing a new power source to stop relying on oil so much! Haha! Think about it: "if you blow yourself up, we'll simply pull you away from Allah's grasp and then use you for running our cars!"

Hey, I know it's silly and stupid, but we've got to think like our enemies. The enemy acts crazy, so we've got to get crazy in return! Anything we do is temporary. Stealing their souls is eternal.

No thank yous are required. I'm glad to have finished off Islamic jihad once and for all.

Peace on earth from now on...

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at January 17, 2006 10:42 AM

What a strange world we have become. Millions of people trying to find a way to kill other millions of people in the shortest time possible.
Whats really happening is worthy of a follywood horor story.
Nukes, bombs, bio's, chems, bullets, swords, bows, spears, rocks and sticks...the lunartics are armed and unstable.
And as EPG above pointed out, the clever (he refered to them as stupid) are selling us out by helping the lunartics. I dont think we are watching stupidity. I think we are seeing cleverness in action. The question is cleverness in who's favor? The people who think Bush is stupid , should ask a further question, if he's too stupid to run the show, who is really doing it? Is stupidity contageous? Did Bush infect Condi, or Rummy, Powell, or Tommy Franks or any number of close-ins? They cant all be stupid (or can they?). Stupidness is not the forte of the politician, it's vacillation they are good at.
They vacillate all over the place. From Dictionary.com:"To swing indecisively from one course of action or opinion to another."
Politicians dont have to be stupid to vacillate, but it does help...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 17, 2006 11:05 AM

Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective. Any other solution?

This premise that conventional bombing of Iran will not work is not based in fact. Iran does not have the facilities that will stop bunker buster missiles. This fight also belongs to the EU. The EU is within reach of missiles from Iran and should be frightened beyond belief of nuclear strikes from Iran. The EU should take all necessary actions before it is too late.

Expecting the UN to take action is ludicrous. The only action from the UN is stalling for the UN is a eunuch and will never be effective again.

If Iran’s electrical generating sites, manufacturing sites and military sites are damaged/destroyed, how can Iran continue to develop nukes?

Posted by: Texican at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM

Once a nuclear war has started the priority targets are the enemy's delivery systems. In the case of a terrorist delivered nuke the delivery system would be Muslim "civilians". A nuclear response would not be the weapon of choice for dealing with the "delivery systems" closest to us.

As far as the statement Note that any conventional bombing of Iran will probably be ineffective.:

The destructive power and delivery capability of what are termed conventional bombs have increased dramatically since they were used to virtually level Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. During Viet Nam and Iraq "shock and awe" the US was specifically trying to avoid civilian casulties. Nobody has seen what we could do with convential weapons if we were trying to cause civilian casulties. The effectiveness of conventional bombing would depend on the targets. For the Iranian nuclear program, I've heard that it is dispersed and in underground facilities. It would be difficult to target. Taking out the oil infrastructure of Iran and Saudi Arabia could be done in a week. The Arab/Muslim world has a population greater than the US and a non-petroleum GDP the size of Spain. Let them eat sand. We could accomplish quite a lot of destruction without leaving the world littered with nuclear waste.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 17, 2006 11:36 AM

Simple solution to a complex problem.
Aerosol pig kinda like Pam, pig fat in a can.
Anywhere a Muslim commits suicide you spray the body parts with the above product and end of problem. Or threaten to spray all of Mecca with it, it kills no one and is otherwise harmless but man is it Haram!!!

Posted by: Islame at January 17, 2006 11:44 AM

The terrorists have already used WMDs: On Hiroshima, Nagasaki (nukes), Iraq/Afghanistan/Lebanon/Palestine (Cluster bombs and FAEs).

Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM

"We are talking about micro targets such as al-Qa'eda which, when combined with WMD, have a macro impact. I rate the probability,blah,blah,blah,blah...."

I'm sorry,What ARE you talking about?

I hate to disagree with "Hank" but this divide and conquer math/thinking won't cut it.

Archduke has it-cut of the head and the body will follow...

Posted by: anonamustafa at January 17, 2006 12:08 PM

Huh...some "micro target"

Posted by: anonamustafa at January 17, 2006 12:09 PM

"Robert said he would ban anyone who mentions nuking Muslims or any Muslim nation or group."

What a joke. This Spencer guy and the rest of the Islamophobic bigots (Limbaugh, Savage,.......) are the Julius Striechers of these times, and this site is just a modern version of "Der Sturmer." A philo-Semitic Muslim hating "Der Sturmer." You knuckle-draggers who frequent this site may need to look-up these references.

I will probably soon be banned from this site, and I don't give a damn.

Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 12:13 PM

Man arrested in connection with 21 July attempted bombings.

Sixteen people arrested over the attempted bombings have been charged.

Five are due to stand trial for conspiracy to murder at the Old Bailey in September.

They are Ibrahim Muktar Said, 27, Ramzi Mohamed, 23, Yassin Omar, 24, Dorothy Birtwistle, 68, Manfo Asiedu, 32, and Hussain Osman, 27.

Actually, one of those names is made up.

Posted by: Interested at January 17, 2006 12:22 PM

Texican writes:
"If Iran’s electrical generating sites, manufacturing sites and military sites are damaged/destroyed, how can Iran continue to develop nukes? "

That's the problem, if we had the ability to use
more powerful weapons, we wouldn't have to destroy
so much and inflict so many casualties. I guess
we'll see how it all plays out soon.

I hope Batilshikan isn't banned, I always get a
laugh out of flatulent sophomores like him
(that's i before e, except after str, genius)
who think that no one else has ever cracked
open a book. Read, and learn, ignorant one.

Posted by: American at January 17, 2006 12:34 PM

Eventually, we in the West will become bored with attempting to tell the good muslims from the bad ... and will bring such destruction upon their world that the few survivors will be fully employed finding enough to eat.

When the muslim world is reduced to scavenging the desert for nuts & berries to survive, we will have won this war.

I am bored, already.

Posted by: Havoc at January 17, 2006 12:37 PM

"What a joke. This Spencer guy and the rest of the Islamophobic bigots (Limbaugh, Savage,.......) are the Julius Striechers of these times, and this site is just a modern version of "Der Sturmer." A philo-Semitic Muslim hating "Der Sturmer." You knuckle-draggers who frequent this site may need to look-up these references."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3197788,00.html

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 12:59 PM

The Islamophobic bigots on this site are like homosexuals having group sex. They are sterile, unproductive, perverted and immoral. They try to exceed each other in immorality and sin.

You fantasize about mass murder and genocide just like serial killers fantasize about their killing sprees (I bet some of you have orgasms as you write about nuking and exterminating Muslims).

Your misdeeds and sins seem pleasing to you, and that is your damnation. Thus you shall take yourself to hell.

Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 1:08 PM

Batilshakan is one who should crack open a book. Nice references, pal, but nowhere near the bile and filth written in the Qur’an. Good ol’ Mo created an entire religion of hatred for his fellow man, has managed to lock in a fool-proof system which doesn’t allow questioning or leaving the faith (unless you consider death as a viable alternative) and has managed to hide the truth from much of the world for centuries under the cover of lies and deception; claiming to be a religion, but is in fact a death cult with political desires of world domination and totalitarianism. Go drag your own knuckles elsewhere, you flatulent waste of space.

If Islamophobic is the term one wishes to give someone whose eyes are open to the daily atrocities heaped upon mankind by the foulest evil ever dredged up from the bowels of hell then, yes, I am proudly Islamophobic.

It beats being ignorant.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at January 17, 2006 1:14 PM

Articles like this continue to remind those of us in America on how important tools like the Patriot Act are so necessary, and even then we still remain incredibly vulnerable with the way this enemy of freedom operates almost without impunity within our own borders as we comment on this.

He wears no uniform,he could be your next door neighbor, he has the ear of, and influences some of our politicians in some cases, He operates sometimes openly and blatently on our university campuses,he operates in the confines of his mosques while insisting that he is part of a religion of peace, he exercises his right through the Quran to deceive us and to tell us half truths, he works to manipulate the ignornant, and the naieve among us so that they will try to stand against the defenders of freedom in America.

If you cannot define yourself and what you stand for, than you cannot defend yourself.

"Know your enemy and know him well"

General Douglas Macarthur

Posted by: Mackie at January 17, 2006 1:21 PM

Batilshakan,

I was playing devil's advocate in order to make a dramatic point. I don't know what to do about terrorist nukes. Perhaps morality requires surrender under some circumstances.

One question for you: Do you doubt that Al Qaeda and the like would set off a nuke in New York or DC if they could? Can you be honest about this, before calling people here 'Nazis' and 'knuckle-draggers'? What do you propose to do about it? The radical Muslims won't be happy until we throw Israel to the wolves. Do you support that?

If I'm a fascist, why did I vote for Kerry? I held by breath regarding his lack of integrity and voted in the name of 'internationalism'. That is, I wanted to continue the old US foreign policy, rather than the aggressive new neocon unilateralism.

As I said, I'm not sure what to do. The danger is unprecedented, and people like you can't even begin by acknowledging the basic facts.

Posted by: Benjamin at January 17, 2006 1:44 PM

"The islamophobic bigots on this site are like homosexuals having group sex. They are sterile, unproductive, perverted and immoral." Post by Batilshikan.

Is this an example of your wonderful, tolerant religion of piss? You, like your death cult leader Mohammed, are an intellectualphobe.

You should be very careful Mr Mohammedan. Do not attempt to inflict harm on any infidels. Jack Bauer is back!!! He is with the Counter Terrorism Unit and will singlehandedly foil any diabolical plots that you may have for us. He is not constrained by PC etiquette, and will slap you around unless you give him any information he wants.

Posted by: GFB at January 17, 2006 1:52 PM

At the end of the day, the only long term strategy that can have results is an organised media and political campaign to make Islam unpopular amoogst Muslims themselves. Describe Islam as it is, and what it does, always has doine, and always will do, unless checked. No stone must be left unturned. Tell people how sadistic the prophet Mohammed was, and use the centuries of more than ample proof to demonstrate this - the massacres that took place during Mohammeds time and over the following 14 centuries. Make people aware of the quotes not only the likes of Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Alexis de Tocqueville, but also the famous Ayatollah Khomeini quote which gives us an insight of the contempt Muslims hold us infidels in. Also make us aware of the hatred that pours out of the mosques and on television in the Islamic world, the contents of Islamic hate websites, how terrorism is always justified in the eyes of the hate peddlars. Make people aware of the hundreds of Koranic verses, hadiths and chapters of the Sura which promote war against all unbelievers. Make it clear to everyone about what an Islamic society would be like to live in - the utterly cruel and barbaric treatment infidels and women can expect, the backwardness and dysfunctionality that would be the fate of their country were it to fall to Islamism. Forcibly expel Muslim hate preachers, criminals and their entire families from your country. And last but certainly not least, the Hugh doctrine of stopping all aid seen as jizya to Muslim countries. If disaster befalls them, give nothing. Sell them no infidel medicines or technology. Making them stand on their own two feet will eventually leave Muslim populations in no doubt as to how poor and dysfunctional they are when Allah no longer works miracles or gives them the aid for which they show absolutely no gratitude. Develop alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on oil, leading to further economic strangulation of the Islamic world. For our sakes, and the sake of our children and humanity itself, the decline and hopefully eventual fall of Islam must begin, and soon.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 17, 2006 1:59 PM

"You fantasize about mass murder and genocide"

i think you're talking about the Iranian president there.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 1:59 PM

Batilshakan you seem obsessed with Nazis, and
homosexual group sex. I bet there are other
web sites where your interests could be catered to
more directly. It's not all that uncommon, since
you mention it, you must be aware of Ernst Roehm.
I can't say I'm too surprised. Perhaps you should
tell us what you think of Islam and jihad though?
That's the topic of interest here.

Posted by: American at January 17, 2006 2:00 PM

Folks:

Batilshikan has clearly demonstrated that he is a muslim, or left wing TROLL, you would be better off not even giving this guy the time of day.

Posted by: Mackie at January 17, 2006 2:10 PM

I am an islamophobe, too. I am scared of living in a country where you lose all freedoms and have to attend or fund every dumb ritual they say, and I am scared of losing my salvation by adopting an evil "religion."

Posted by: ralphyboy at January 17, 2006 2:14 PM

Let's bomb Iranians with knowledge! Drop leaflets all over the country. Broadcast anti-regime programms day and night. Knowledge heals, knowledge is an eye-opener. Every revolution starts in the mind.
On the solemn note - latest - heard on the radio an hour ago that the dhimmi British Parliament removed the clause about incitement to terrorism from the planned anti-terrorist bill! Quo vadis Britannia?????????????

Posted by: Polish infideless at January 17, 2006 2:24 PM

"heard on the radio an hour ago that the dhimmi British Parliament removed the clause about incitement to terrorism from the planned anti-terrorist bill"

it was the upper House of Lords - they did the right thing. the Bill was incomprehesible and badly worded, and if passed would have amounted to a serious infraction of free speech.

you have to bear in mind that anti-terror laws in the UK have been used to arrest peaceful anti-arms trade protestors. i'm not making this up.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 2:36 PM

All true, Crumpton is right -- though I'm not sleeping any easier as a result... I think his analysis is fairly common sense, what's important in my view is the logical link he makes between the threat of terrorists using WMD with the ties that Iran has with Hezbollah.

Posted by: ajveros at January 17, 2006 2:50 PM

Archduke - you are right. The House of Lords objected to the proposed law against "glorifying" terrorism for the same reason that it objected to the religious hatred bill, which it has now hobbled (limiting the offence to "threatening" words). Both infringe on free speech, and both are so vague as to be unworkable.

Interestingly, "Sir" Icky of the Muslim Council of Britain has been hoist with his own petard - he is under police investigation for allegedly "homophobic remarks", principally the new law allowing Civil Partnerships of gay couples.

In my opinion, "Sir" Sickball has every right to object to this new law, and to view this investigation as an infringement of his right to free speech. However, "Sir" was not always so keen on free speech, being a key proponent of the proposed religious hatred law, and one who, some years ago, said that death was too good for Salman Rushdie.

As Corporal Jones used to say, they don't like it up 'em, do they?

Posted by: Interested at January 17, 2006 2:53 PM

"Knuckle draggers" and other attacks by the "oh, so superior" leftists and muslims are laughable. Who are the knuckle draggers? Maybe those who choose to return to the 7th century with all the attendant miseries of old Mo's time?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at January 17, 2006 2:58 PM

archduke -

The House of Lords did NOT remove "incitement to terrorism". They removed a clause about "glorifying" terrorism and have advised the Government that the definition of "glorifying" is unworkable. Further, they have invited the Government to reinstate the clause with a much better definition of "glorifying", that is to say one that the courts can make work/stick.

This is the Upper House doing what it is supposed to do - revise legislation and get it right.

Incidentally, "Incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts" is a crime in Britain under an Act of Parliament that was passed many years ago to come with an entirely different terrorist threat against us that funded and supported by the USA.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 17, 2006 2:59 PM

Spirit Of 1683 --- I agree with you when you say,

"At the end of the day, the only long term strategy that can have results is an organised media and political campaign to make Islam unpopular amoogst Muslims themselves. Describe Islam as it is, and what it does, always has done, and always will do, unless checked. No stone must be left unturned."

To do this, the Unbelieving public must see it for what it is. I've been concerned about this from 9/12/2001. I wondered, 'why do they hate us & why do they think Allah would be happy about killing 3,000 people in New York. Now I know.

I've been looking at this site for about a year now. I have been writing a novel that will repudiate this belief system called *Submission* at least for English-speaking people.

I think people need to be drawn into this battle. I'm trying to entertain them to get them to pay attention and see the Khomeni quotes, the ahadith and our favorite selections from Qur'an.

Of course I can't use my real name, since I want to live to see my grandchildren, but I am going try to get it published and get the word out to people who wouldn't study up on Submission by themselves and wouldn't buy something more scholarly. Many people won't make the effort because it's not 'fun'. Those people have to be warned about the threat as well.

We need _Project Samson_ as I call it in my story. Like the old character from the Old Testament, most of us Kaffir are blinded, but we are still very stong. We need to pull down the 6 Pillars of Islam, like Samson did in his story.

We need to target each pillar and pull it down. Discredit it all and disable it. Cut the head off, make the practice very expensive (in all ways) and the Ummah, being like most people, will abandon it eventually.

When the baby boom crests in the Middle East or the violent ones are taken care of, this threat will subside. We need to keep going at it even then.... discredit, disrespect, disgust.

The world has over 4 billion Kuffir and only 1.2 Billion Muslims. It's time we used that and it's time to get the word out.

I am going to try to get published this year. My story will be called A Plague on Both Houses, naturally.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 17, 2006 3:07 PM

Of course Sacranie has every right to talk about a law - we all have. He did, allegedly, however, go too far and, allegedly, called for, or approved of, or sanctioned in some respect, violence against certain members of our society based purely on the details of who they wished to bed with - or so it alleged, but not proved, and is being investigated.

Somebody should tell this idiot that it is only sex. It's not terribly important in the great scheme of things and that a God that made this colossal Universe - and seemingly an infinite number of others - is probably completely unconcerned about who sleeps with whom.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 17, 2006 3:12 PM

Batilshikan;

Do you seriously think that you can kick open the door to this site, your mental guns blazing, and send the folks hereabout scuttling back into their holes? Do you think that what you proudly perceive as your lethally incisive and devastatingly direct assault on our veil of self-deception is some sort of new and frightening force we must reckon with? A number of the individuals who gather here possess some of the most exercised and far-reaching intellects you are likely to find. The depth and breadth of the collective knowledge here will bring you to your knees. They have had experts attempt to blow smoke up their posterior, a pup like you is lucky to even be noticed. And opening with "Nazi" and "homosexual" references, not to mention "knuckledragger"(I mean, really, was that supposed to be original or innovative?) probably wasn't a very smart move. It's hard to take someone seriously when they're strident so early on. Unseemly, you know.

So, if you would like to actually learn something, read for a few weeks while keeping your hands occupied with something other than your keyboard. Your cute little catchwords aren't taken very seriously here. More often they're viewed as symptoms of a limited vocabulary or lazy mind, crutches so to speak.
You are actually a very lucky individual. Having found this site you are in a position to learn the truth about this murderous, fascist threat that is even now attempting to dominate the world. An organization intent, through killing, rape, robbery, deception, coercion, and terror, on depriving the good people of the world of their rights, their ability to question authority and think for themselves, their right to live and raise their children as they see fit, their very right to their own mind. This ideology is a far greater threat than Nazism or Communism ever were, with the power to erase the progress of thousands of years of human progress and send mankind spiralling back into the abyss of the Hobbesian world. This threat is Islam, it is a totalitarian ideology cartoonishly, yet dangerously masquerading as a legitimate religion. No good can come of it, diametrically opposed as it is to all in this world that is good and decent, and it is capable of bringing about the end of the civilized world.

Posted by: t-ham at January 17, 2006 3:20 PM

He did, allegedly, however, go too far and, allegedly, called for, or approved of, or sanctioned in some respect, violence against certain members of our society based purely on the details of who they wished to bed with - or so it alleged, but not proved, and is being investigated.

Are you sure? The Telegraph doesn't mention this.

I'm very much in favour of the Civil Partnership law, but think Sir Ick has every right to say that homosexuality is evil. Peter Tatchell supports his right to free speech. He has the right to say Islam is evil. The right to free speech is indivisible.

Hmm, Noraid - no different from Interpal in my view. Or was until a few years ago. Funny that.

Posted by: Interested at January 17, 2006 3:23 PM

Islam is a moral fraud. As such, and because the fraud projects fake morality, Moslems and their incessant crimes are either actively or tacitly endorsed by all powerful infidels, all of whom of course must uncritically accept the fraud.

The only group who will perpetrate a WMD slaughter is the Moslems. Everybody knows this, including those moral frauds the Moslems.

When it finally takes place, will the WMD slaughter wake us up? Will the Twin Cower frauds of Islam As Relgion and Moderate Moslems then be smashed?

I doubt it. I think that instead the careful process of negotiated Dhimmitude will begin. Look for Jacques Chiraq and the King of Sweden to be the first to drop their pants and lay over the table looking for Moslem input.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 17, 2006 3:45 PM

this is Sacranie's crowd - the MCB

have a look at this:
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=24

"Holocaust Day: MCB regrets exclusion of Palestinian genocide"

and hey - look here - even Jack Bauer gets into trouble with them:
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=130

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 3:48 PM

Mr Spencer please don't ban Batilshikan, he is hilarious I havent laughed so hard in ages.

And Batilshikan you should stick around you might learn something.Come on take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Posted by: km at January 17, 2006 4:19 PM

may i add to the call to NOT ban Batilshikan.

i would like to think that Jihadwatch would uphold the principles of free speech.

Have a look at the link below to see what little freedom people have in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41731.htm

Bear in mind that since the sentence for converting from Muslim to Christian (or indeed atheism) is death in that country, we should consider the idea that many "Muslims" in Saudi might secretly be Christian, atheist, Buddhist or whatever.

So the "nuke all Arabs" crowd are dead wrong - its like saying "kill all Russians" just to get rid of Communism. An utter absurdity.

Thankfully Ayatollah Khomeini himself gives us a clue on what to do about Islam:

"Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; ELIMINATE THE MULLAHS and Islam shall disappear in FIFTY YEARS. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam--begging to have their blood shed for Islam."
-Ayatollah Khomeini

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 4:58 PM

Interested, I agree, BUT there was a precedence before - a Christian fundamentalist was persecuted for expressing more or less similar opinions about homosexuality so dura lex sed lex. Enough exceptions for "sensitive" Muslims have been made already in the UK. I wish Sir I splashed all over the front pages of Bristish gutter press (so cruel here!) - can you imagine a better present the infidels could get for the Holocaust Day?

Posted by: Polish infideless at January 17, 2006 5:04 PM

a Christian fundamentalist was persecuted

Do you mean prosecuted?

Posted by: Interested at January 17, 2006 5:48 PM

A couple of days ago, a stupid stranger called me a fascist after overhearing me talking to a friend about Zawahiri, and saying to him that it was a pity the US didn't get him in that airstrike, but at least they took out 11 Jihadis as a consolation prize, mentioning the 4,000 plus fatal terror atrocities since 911, and the fact that the Koran, Sira and hadith promote terrorism. With that sort of bone-headed ignorance as regards Islam so rife in the UK, even after atrocities like 911, Bali - twice, Beslan, Madrid and London itself, the portents look very grim for future generations including my one-year-old niece, thanks to this sort of crass indifference and lack of knowledge of Islam, sown by political correctness.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 17, 2006 6:06 PM

Interested, of course "prosecuted" - a Freudian slip (persecution is to follow soon).

Posted by: Polish infideless at January 17, 2006 6:26 PM

Spirit of 1683 - can i give you some hope.

I was a left winger - of the anti-Iraq war crowd, the crowd that blamed Bush for 9/11. Yeah - that was me.

But, as the years went by and as i investigated exactly what this "islam" is - and as i saw the suicide bombings in Iraq grow ever more fiercer, i was worried.

the epiphany occurred to me when the July 7th bombings in London happened - England , one of the most tolerant countries i have ever lived in, and the bombers actually were born and bred in England itself.

that was the wake up call for me.

i'm still left wing - and after this war, we can go back to the usual democractic left versus right civillised debate, as has been the case for centuries in our democracies. So, for the sake of your niece, and for the sake of freedom for future generations, i'm throwing my hat into the ring.

* by left , i dont mean marxist. more Bill Clinton or Tony Blair left , much as i disagree with Tony Blair's bending over backwards to the Muslim Council of Britain - someobody show print out JihadWatch and send it to him.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 6:27 PM

Thought so. Which case did you have in mind? The Telegraph mentions "the cases of Joan and Helen Roberts, who complained about gay literature put out by their local council, author Lynette Burrows speaking on Radio 5 on gay adoption and the Bishop of Chester speaking in 2003".

There appears, in these cases, to have been an "investigation" rather than a prosecution, as such.

Leaving aside defamation, which doesn't apply here I believe that people should be allowed to say whatever they like, with exceptions for incitement to violence and direct incitement to racial hatred (the current law). So Sir Icky should be allowed to have a go at gays and gays should be allowed to have a go at Islam.

Posted by: Interested at January 17, 2006 6:32 PM

typo - last bit should read "somebody should print out Jihadwatch and send it to him"

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 6:33 PM

"Let's bomb Iranians with knowledge! Drop leaflets all over the country. Broadcast anti-regime programms day and night. Knowledge heals, knowledge is an eye-opener. Every revolution starts in the mind."

what a damn good idea. However, I think our western satellite TV channels are doing that job right now - even the Saudi's realise they cant control it. The internet is another way of doing - the Iranian blogosphere is utterly buzzing at the moment.

its happening - right now. its happening.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 6:38 PM

Joy in Life will always win out over fatalistic theocratic headlock.

An intelligent woman trumps Islam, cult of their unique, stunted "only-worth-half-of-a-man" creature.

A free mind trumps Islam, creed of the "Let's stay in a 7th century cul de sac" and its permanent-underdog thrill-killers.

We can absorb all that they throw, -nukes, -bacteria, -viruses, -chemicals, -or a hissy-fit flung Koran, then still laugh at the sad, dwarfed spirits that this "shadow of the swords" 'religion' inculcates in its victims.

They being, first of all, the Muslim 95% * who don't want to be in the deformed thrall of a pedophile prophet's mummified moral quirks.

We have to encourage the sane in Islam to flee this dark, despotic 'faith', and get over to where we look toward the future with wonder, -not to the Past with blinders.

Hatred from its twisted defenders is a perfection of their hypnosis- pretending to be able to morally defend a cult whose founder was clearly a warped, sexually-depraved warlord.

Just bail out of the Religion of Peace and breathe the free air of the soul.

Join the last struggle to free humanity, finally, from the paralyzing theological arrogance of The Worship of the Word.

The 'divine' is a Delight to be discovered by an awakening species, not a petrified weapon to terrorize your neighbors.

I only hope that the Iranian young will overthrow their maniac-in-chief and his Mahdi-intoxicated government, and give an example to "The Islamic world" that "Enough is enough of their cracked mullahs leading us to their personal apocalypse and death- or suicide-wish."

Let's wish them strength against the megalomaniacal ayatollahs and their flunkees in office.

And an orange revolution in Iran.

But dug in for the worst, here.

An ready with our DAMNED harder response in reaction -if a WMD strike ever happens.

They need to know that when a chicken bites a tiger, it only means capon for dinner.

***********************************************

(*I base the 5% remaining "dominant" figure on bioogical studies of mamamls.)

Although I appreciate Rebecca's quoted joke, above, as well. (My brother will nod sanguinely when I mention it.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 17, 2006 6:53 PM

And "biological" "mammals", too.

Long live the anti-entropy of Life!

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 17, 2006 7:02 PM

Spirit of 1683 - re your anecdote - obviously I don't anything about you but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white and that the stranger who called you a fascist was white. It's also possible that you're white and that the person that called you a fascist was brown-skinned. However, I very much doubt that you yourself are brown-skinned because I cannot imagine a stranger (whether white or brown) calling a brown-skinned stranger a fascist, based on an overheard conversation. Why? Because a brown-skinned person couldn't possibly be a fascist, now could they?

Why do I bring this up? Because I was mulling over a random comment I stumbled across on a random blog sometime ago. I believe the blog was discussing Hurricane Katrina. And the gist of this comment was that a good part of white liberalism isn't actually about helping brown-skinned people at all. Because if that were the point, white liberals wouldn't keep enacting policies that don't work but that make themselves feel noble while doing nothing good at all for brown-skinned people. No - what this person said is that a central dynamic of white liberalism is actually about making certain white people (the good liberals) feel superior to other white people (the stupid, unenlightened rednecks). Hence, the endless mocking of white red-state conservatives by white blue-state liberals.

I've been thinking about that - mulling it over in my head as part of my overall effort to understand the western liberal pathology that prevents so many from coming to terms with what Islam is all about. And I keep trying to understand that pathology, because it really is half the battle.

I could be totally off-base here but your anecdote would be in keeping with what I've outlined here - namely that you're white and the stranger who so boldly presumed to call you a fascist was white. And if that was the case, then my guess would be that the guy who called you a fascist was primarily interested in his own ego-identification as a superior, "enlightened" white person, relative to you, the dumb, unenlightened white. (and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow, but you gotta take a gamble now and again :-))

Posted by: Caroline at January 17, 2006 7:09 PM

the 5% meme actually comes from Japanese run POW camps in WW2. The Japanese soldiers would let the POWs sort themselves out - hierachy, whos in charge , all that sort of stuff.

And then, about 2 weeks later - it was samurai sword for the 5 per cent who were leading the other 95 per cent.

end result - a very maliable 95 per cent.

now, considering that the Japanese went on to build the 21st century electronics and car industry, we could do well from learning from this lesson in history.

may i repeat what Ayatollah Khomeini said, for within his statement lies the solution to the Islam death cult probem:

"Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam-- begging to have their blood shed for Islam." -Ayatollah Khomeini

and in case you didnt catch this in other threads, here's the US State Department report on Sharia Islamic Law Saudi Arabia
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41731.htm

read it. read it again. and read some more. THAT is islam in action.

Posted by: archduke at January 17, 2006 7:10 PM

archduke-

I thought the "5%" figure was learned from the Korean War's "allied" p.o.w.'s (same "culling" to make the remainder docile), but it may have been borrowed from the Japanese's groudbreaking work on "The Theory and Practice of Hell".

I'll bow to their precocious depravity.

(And I meant "mammals" in its widest sense.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 17, 2006 7:19 PM

A thought, this hype over Iran having nukes might be a ruse, there is evidence in front of our eyes, that this Administration (and previous) actually have worked with and sponsored Iran.

Yeh I know you guys don't believe, but believe this.

Pakistan has the ability to build nukes and it has plutonium, what does it take to ship plutonium to Iran from Pakistan? Nothing but a small freighter or even trucks through Afghanistan. And Iran got their nuclear capability from Pakistan in the first place.

And FYI, anyone can build a nuke, it isn't difficult if you have the resources,the problem is the plutonium but as I said they can get that from Pakistan easily.

And for those who don't think that their is connivance between this administration and Iran consider this. SCIRI is Iran's foothold in Iraq and Wolfowitz eulogized the assassinated Ayatollah Al Hakim (D: 2003, head of SCIRI) as the Abraham Lincoln of his country and the Iranians helped Bush and Blair cook the intel, that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq (why would that be? Hmm the 1980-1988 war maybe, the hostility between the apostate Sunni Sadam and the Shi'a Mullahcracy).

And this just in:

Abramoff-Linked Legislator Steps Down From Committee Chairman
On Capitol Hill, the fallout from the massive Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal continues to be felt. Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio has temporarily stepped down as chairman of the House Administration Committee. Ney is identified in Abramoff's recent plea agreement as "Representative #1." Abramoff reportedly bought off Ney by having his Indian tribal clients give him donations in exchange for political favors. Newsweek is now reporting that federal prosecutors are also investigating whether Ney personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to relax sanctions on Iran. Ney made the request after returning from an expense-paid trip to London paid for by a thrice-convicted felon named Nigel Winfield. Winfield ran an airline spare parts company and was seeking to do business with Iran.

None of this could be of course, because the administration is true blue "conservative" and you guys voted for it, and will vote red again.

Money, trumps all.

Posted by: Nariz at January 17, 2006 9:31 PM

So, again in mass hysteria mode? Calm down and take a valium or something, nuclear strike, deportation, and massive conversion of Muslims are not for today.

Who is this guy, the same one who said Irak had WMD? LOL

But then it wouldn't be surprising the terrorists had chemicals brought from Irak, we all know where they came from, right?

"99% of the muslims are crazy and they give the rest a bad rep. - Uncle Dirty, NYC"

It is a trait in some mentally ill people to believe they are actually sane while it is the rest of the people who is crazy. I guess this is what happens to you and the deranged Mecca nuking team.

Posted by: Ispanan at January 17, 2006 10:25 PM

Nariz: Pakistan has the ability to build nukes and it has plutonium, what does it take to ship plutonium to Iran from Pakistan? Nothing but a small freighter or even trucks through Afghanistan. And Iran got their nuclear capability from Pakistan in the first place.

Nariz

Ever seen a map of the area? Which country lies to the west of Pakistan? Which country lies to the south east of Iran?

In other words, why would Afghanistan matter?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 18, 2006 2:12 AM

Benjamin

Batilshakan is a Mohammedan, a jihadist. Don't make the mistake of assuming that he is on our side. He's also a cretin - anyone who has read or listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that he is not an anti-Islamist; he restricts his opposition to terrorism to al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, the Arabs, but he buys the existance of moderate Muslims. In other words, while he isn't a Dhimmi, he isn't an anti-Jihadist either.

On your original post, while I wouldn't advocate nuking a city, I do think nuclear missiles should be aimed at nuclear sites like Yazd, Natanz... Also, while I don't want civilians to be deliberately targetted, I want the US to make no effort in reducing them. Reason: by doing that, they create safe zones for everyone, including the enemy, to take refuge. Something like Iraqi weapons being packed in schools, and Dhimmi human shields being takes to actual military sites, rather than civilian sites.

Do a few of these, and we wont have to bother about referring Iran to the UN security council, sanctions, or anything else. It will be completely our call.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 18, 2006 2:25 AM

Archduke:

Thanks for the link to the MCB. I was not aware that the series 24 was being shown in the UK.
If the MCB is upset, it can only mean that the truth is being told.

The 2005 series was one of the few shows or movies in the media that did not bow to pressure to sanitize the portrayal of muslims. Usually, terrorists are protrayed as blond nazies or in one case, Serbians. It was refreshing to actually see realty.

Posted by: GFB at January 18, 2006 10:25 AM

Caroline, you got it right first time. I am white, and the fella who called me a fascist was white. But if there is anything more dangerous to the wellbeing, and freedom to live and enjoy their lives for future generations, than any Bin Laden, any Ahmadinejad, any Zarqawi or any Zawahiri, it is people with that sort of ignorance who know nothing about Islam, see those who actually know something about Islam as bigots, and believe the PC rot they listen to on the news and read in the papers. The Zarqawis and Zawahiris of this world live only once, but the indifferent go on.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 18, 2006 1:24 PM

Thanks for responding Spirit. They don't serve crow in my local restaurant and I don't own a shotgun so I'm glad I guessed right:-)

I very much doubt whether that stranger, if he had overheard this guy (a Palestinian Christian who detests Islam) saying the same thing, would have so arrogantly taken it upon himself to butt into his conversation and call him a fascist...

http://islamthreat.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Caroline at January 18, 2006 5:13 PM

Oh - and I forgot to add, since your original anecdote specifically concerned the strike on Zawahiri, that I think the blogger I linked to above really hit the nail on the head:

"The Muslims are protesting the women and children which I find quite hypocritical in a country where women are treated like live cattle at best or raped and (honor-killed) later. Since when do these people care about women, or children for that matter."

Exactly...

Posted by: Caroline at January 18, 2006 5:32 PM

HI,

Thanks for this great site! I share this one, and FF,, with everyone, and so on and so on.
The web, is a great place to get knowledge out to folks!

have you guys seen this????

http://www.susbloodlabs.com/homepage.html

check it out,, it's a pretty dam good idea, methinks.

harley rider livin in dar al harb
will never submit to ridin HD in a freakin' burka

)0(
goddess help us

Posted by: solsticewitch13 at January 20, 2006 7:53 PM