romantic entanglements

Did I miss something? Crap! ;)

Seriously, though, Robert, I will pledge not to be part of the problem, and to try to be part of the solution.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 5, 2006 8:56 AM

I admit to sometimes straying off-target :P

However, when it comes to Trolls (and in this, I mean those who deliberately try to steer us off-topic and never answer our questions):

1) No insults! Just hammer them with the facts.

2) Keep after them to respond to the topic of the thread.

3) Ignore them if nothing else.

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2006 8:59 AM

romantic entanglements

Did I miss something? Crap! ;)

Must have been ships that passed in the night. Or vice versa.

Posted by: Interested at March 5, 2006 9:01 AM

Here I was prepared to handicap the Oscars despite the fact I haven't seen any of the movies. I predict many of the winning awards will relate to gay rights.

/D-oh!

Posted by: Beagle at March 5, 2006 9:04 AM

Gee, I missed all of this, too!
More to to the point, be forewarned. You are on private property. You can be asked to leave at any time. You might get a note warning you to knock it off, but not necessarily. Try to mind your manners, and be aware when you are just beating a dead horse.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 5, 2006 9:11 AM

You couldn't help yourself could you Beagle. Tsk Tsk. Please go stand by that wall over there and put this blindfold on. For the wages of sin...

Posted by: William The Crusader at March 5, 2006 9:12 AM

I think most people here are passionate, and l believe my most possible sin was characterizing the man who got caught in Irag who beheaded over a hundred people was deleted. l did not give a broad stroke to all Iraqis, infact l have been more positive about bringing in democracy into Iraq.
Hugh is very eloquent with his pieces, many of them very inspiring, but what l get is that he feels that Democracy is a failed venture into the middle east.
and wants mass deportation of muslims from western lands. wants Bush to openly say islam is the problem, although l would love Bush to say that, but as a Western Leader, he cannot do that. But can you invision mass deportation of muslims from Europe? there would such huge outcrys...it would not be possible. We already are starting to get your wacko muslim trying to mow down people with his suv! that could be added to Rush's suv stories btw.
anyhow my point l was most disgusted and my statement on the head chopper was very appropriate and if it offened any Muslim, than do something about stopping people like that!

Posted by: Lulu at March 5, 2006 9:19 AM

Amazing what a "k" can do, a "k" preferably not in the vicious vein of "Amerika" but in the Herrmanesque vein of Krazy Kat (& Ignatz). The sense here demands that the "r" in "Krazy" be pronounced with a (pronounced) grasseyement that will take it beyond haut-Milanese or English-Embankment St-Peterbourgeois all the way to demotic Elmer-Fuddish "kwazy wabbit" so that despite the spelling, the good reader will already have sounded out the title, in his mind's inner vox, as "Komments kwaziness."

Of course, if from your mental menu you choose to select instead of a "kwazy wabbit" the Welsh rarebit, you will by a natural commodious vicus end up not with George Herrman's Krazy or Kwazy Kat, but with Little Nemo and Winsor McCay.

Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2006 9:26 AM

Robert! Hugh's Welshing on us again!

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2006 9:28 AM

------your words are meaningless for Muslims and Muslim sympathizers lie about everything.

How do you tell when a Muslim is lying? Whenever a Muslim speaks.

Only lies and filth can come out of a Muslim's mouth for their souls are corrupted by following the corrupt souled Mohammed who was a pedophile and child rapist.

The Texican.---------

I believe that such a statement is covered by THIS:

----- Comments making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims will be deleted if seen.-----

And I also guess that much of this topic was also directed at me.

But I'm afraid those who run 'Jihad Watch' are fooling themselves if their VERY MUCH NOBLE CAUSE (I agree 110% with what 'Jihad Watch' stands for in principal) is not tainted and basically made to look like nothing but one lot of religious hardliners taking swipes at another lot of religious hardliners because they are fighting over which religion shall control our lives.

And i thought 'Jihad Watch' existed to watch and warn people abou, t and peacefully fight, Islam because it is a cruel, backwards, prejudiced, war mongering, conquering, oppressive religion and religious culture.
And such a religion effects everyone who is not a Muslim (and even those minority, very moderate Muslims) and has NOTHING to do with being Christian or not.

It was not just Christian/Baptist/Jewish/Catholic bodies lying in the ruins of the Twin Towers, or on the trains in Spain, or the clubs in Bali or the streets and subway tunnels of my London!

BUT it seems Jihad Watch has very much been taken over by rabid Christian fundamentalists who in fact do nothing but bring one type of religious oppression to replace another and quite frankly taint the whole idea that 'Jihad Watch' should stand for.

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 9:43 AM

Does nothing get through?

Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2006 9:56 AM

“Hugh is very eloquent with his pieces, many of them very inspiring, but what l get is that he feels that Democracy is a failed venture into the middle east.”

So do I. Islam has no need for democracy, Allah knows best.

”and wants mass deportation of muslims from western lands.”

So do I. They are bullies, intimidating everyone for anything, constantly.

“wants Bush to openly say islam is the problem, although l would love Bush to say that, but as a Western Leader, he cannot do that.”

He could but he won’t. Many courageous leaders of the past have said that very thing. We put those men in history books.

“But can you invision mass deportation of muslims from Europe? there would such huge outcrys...it would not be possible.”

Yes, I can certainly imagine it. In fact, if the common folk can take back their governments from the elites, I believe it will happen. Let them cry and stomp their feet. They had their chance and blew it. A hundred years ago, heart transplants and walking on the moon were impossible. Possibilities are only limited by physics and the imagination.

“We already are starting to get your wacko muslim trying to mow down people with his suv!”

If there were no Muslims here this wouldn’t happen, at least not for the reasons this wacko stated.

I’m not saying this to be mean Lulu. I enjoy your posts. I ask only that you open your mind a little.

Posted by: butterfly at March 5, 2006 10:15 AM

J and D Watch are a great resource, the daily roundup of world events is about as clear cut as it can get... the articles you guys write are tops.

I have seen links to J/D news reports and the written articles posted far and wide across the net.

I love the comment section, I have particular people i look out for to see what their take on the post is and have given and swapped info in islam.

I have been reading and having posting spurts off and on here for about 2 years. I have recommended the site to so many people.

Please keep it up and know it is well received by people fighting oppression world wide.

Posted by: meredith at March 5, 2006 10:24 AM

I RS's article will make a difference in the discourse on these forums. I try hard to make a distinction between Islam, its canonical texts and political system, and Muslims as people; I have discussed my problems with Islamic doctrine with Muslims while holding carefully to this distinction and had some surprisingly positive experiences. Surely we can do it here.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at March 5, 2006 10:29 AM

... made up of endless pasted-in articles from other sources ...

Ouch! I think I might be guilty of that one. I'll be sure to check strictly for relevance before giving any links in future.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 5, 2006 10:33 AM

"What to do about prison da'wa"
"Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some suggestions about how to counter the spread of Islam -- and jihadist sentiments -- in Western prisons: non-Christians, including atheists, should be eager to support Christian ministries in prisons and elsewhere".... Stuff the da'wa in western prisons, it's our politicians who need the education on what Islam stands for and this "What to do about prison da'wa" thread was sure to "go off the rails" Kafir Nonbeliever was right, it was a ridiculous piece Mr Fitzgerald and l'll refrain from useing the "muzzie" term from here on in.

Posted by: stranger at March 5, 2006 10:38 AM

By and large I don't have any problems with any of the comments here, except perhaps by those christian numbskulls who write comments along the lines of "Jesus is going to win and the Muslim world will be nuked back to stone age". Hello guys, we're supposed to be BETTER than the muslims!

That this board gets hijacked by christian fundamentalists doesn't exactly make it a better place to discuss the perils of islamic fundamentalism.

Posted by: odin, king of gods at March 5, 2006 10:52 AM

I did notice how, quite recently, a thread that should have been dedicated to the beauty of Ms.Bynum and the beard of Mr.Spencer somehow became an exposition of Fifteen Top Reasons Why All Government is Bad. I myself try to avoid riding hobby-horses, but when someone brutalizes in writing my religion, my country or my views, you cannot expect me to be silent. And the issue of Islam is bound up with so many others, that it is difficult not to stray. The best thing to do is to keep warning each other. Ah, and I am against mass deportations on principle, as well as because I have Muslim friends and anyone who wants to mess with them will have me to deal with. If you want reasons why mass deportations are wrong, I will give them, but I am against them right from the gut. And incidentally, Hugh, you must be the only person who does not regard the Benes decree as odious and basically useless.

Posted by: Paolo at March 5, 2006 10:53 AM

Stranger,

Dawa is a calculated method of recruitment.

Prisons are ripe targets, full of powerful and often angry potential "new extremists", often versed in crime and connected to various networks, it is very worth being concerned about.

The population is the basic foundation of any society, alot of this is in our hands, the pollies are bound to certain degrees, legislation and finacial trade etc.

There are easy simple methods on hand, the prison preacher, the prison therapist, why not?

As much as I don't mind so much when i see islamic stuff outlawed, I also beleive it's outlawing is going to give it mayter status.

It's the actual brainwash of the religion thats the ultimate danger. Ideally I'd love to see islam as a religious and lawful structure crumble, via, their own anger, the Western satan of beer and bikinis, or conversion to christianity, anything the open and Modern west has to offer is better than what they have now.

On saying this, also there is probably not the time to save then from themselves, any imput against islam from any western standerd is pretty valubale.

Posted by: meredith at March 5, 2006 11:01 AM

Comments that are breathtakingly off-topic...

There's a challenge. Comments may be off-topic but not breathtakingly so. The trick, then, is to fine-tune the deviation so as to avoid taking the breath altogether, but to cause the reader to pause for breath in delighted anticipation. This bating of breath is a skill that needs to be mastered.

Posted by: Interested at March 5, 2006 11:03 AM

lol im one of the spelling criminals :P

Posted by: meredith at March 5, 2006 11:04 AM

Dear JW, I do apologize for using emotionally inflammatory word pictures, I am being very serious. I have lived in an arab country and have seen first hand the nature of islam. I am personally horrified by the ignorance of 99% of north Americans & Europeans. Iraq was for oil (The US uses NO oil from Iraq) Bush IS the terrorist, palastinians only want their land back. Jews control the banks and US military. The ignorance is deep and the solution is to fight back with the same tools that the enemy uses. Word pictures. Truthful, word pictures. When I comment on the fact that a certain religion condones sex with animals, it comes directly from an imam's website where he explained it was necessary to kill the animal for seducing the poor man. Other images of debauchery may turn the stomach but are none the less true images of the current situation. Which is the better way to convey an impression. To say an annonymous jew was killed in France or to say James Goldsmith, a 15 year old student, was kidnapped in Paris after school. He was tortured by peeling off his skin while being read verses from a certain book. His fingers were amputated with wire cutters as his captores mother watched and yelled curses at him.
Which would you remember and respond to. This enemy is a notorious butcher with no feelings of love for others, not even their own children. The west is like a cow going along unaware of it's surroundings. Like the cow it needs the cattle prod to shock it into action for it's own good.

Posted by: vulcan at March 5, 2006 11:07 AM

christian numbskulls who write comments along the lines of "Jesus is going to win and the Muslim world will be nuked back to stone age".

I think this erroneously conflates two different groups of people.

In any case, this is just what Robert wants to avoid.

The "fundamental" Christian message is "Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you."

I say this not because I am a practising Christian (I am not) but because it is so.

There should be no bickering between people owing allegiance to different groups. The clock is ticking: we haven't got time for it. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Secularist, we all face the same threat.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 5, 2006 11:11 AM

May I suggest, Robert, that you open comments to Jihad Watch staff and those selected by JW and create a separate forum for JW member discussions?

Posted by: Abby at March 5, 2006 11:12 AM

Robert, while I agree with what you are saying in principle, it is difficult to see people murdered for no reason other than that they are Christians and not respond as a Christian or sometimes emotionally. I for one do not believe Islam will ever be reformed by "moderate Muslims" as many people do. I strongly believe that the only way to effectively combat Islamic theology is with Christian theology. To illustrate this point I have yet to have any Muslim here respond effectively to any of my posts as to how the Q'uran makes Jesus Christ to be a liar and a false prophet. If Muslms practice D'awa here, we should be allowed to respond in kind. And if we are overtaken by emotion over the slaughter of innocents, may God forgive us.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 5, 2006 11:15 AM

Yojimbo wrote: "There should be no bickering between people owing allegiance to different groups. The clock is ticking: we haven't got time for it. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Secularist, we all face the same threat."

Yes, we should all unite, but it doesn't do us any good to sound just as rabid as the peopel we critizise...

Posted by: odin, king of gods at March 5, 2006 11:40 AM

Abby's suggestion above is excellent: "May I suggest, Robert, that you open comments to Jihad Watch staff and those selected by JW and create a separate forum for JW member discussions?"

Have two discussion forums:

1) for JW staff and select members whom you choose

2) completely, utterly unmoderated and free discussion with a clear disclaimer at the top: "The following stream of comments is completely unmoderated and Jihad Watch has absolutely nothing to do with it other than providing the space for it in the interest of Internet freedom of speech."

That way, Jihad Watchers can finally rid themselves of that nagging, highly annoying and stressful feeling that some officious prudish aunt is looking down her purple granny spectacles at our prickling necks with a ruler under her shawl all the fucking time, and breathe, at last, of 21st century secular Western freedom the way it's meant to be on this new-fangled invention, the Internet which hasn't yet, thank Allah, been sold to Dubai or Kofi Anan.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 5, 2006 11:45 AM

Merideth
You make a good point but, I just dont see Western prisons as the right place to begin the educating proccess about the perils of Islam, they're in prison because they're rebels and Islam provides a fair excuse to continue with their selfish sociapathic ways, the fight is to open the eyes of the general public and our politicians to the menace that is Islam and this tact of confronting the threat with-in the walls of prisons will only scrape the surface and will bring out the calls, " you cannot deny them a means of finding inner peace" from ignorant do gooders.

Posted by: stranger at March 5, 2006 11:54 AM

----- Comments making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims will be deleted if seen.-----

Thats good if the comments are untrue or unfair. While muslims are individuals, they are at the same time, clones of each other. There are lots of blanket statements that apply to all of them.
For instance, my oft stated quote of Bukhari that Jihad is an obligation incumbant on all muslims. This is broad brush...it also happens to be true. But then I did not come up with that, Bukhari did...Delete him...ha ha.

Religious evangelism...
There is a lot of 'My religion is less murderous than your religion', finger pointing, going on all over the place. You would think that these fingers would get tired of all that wagging, but they dont. This gives the impression that this is war of religions, which it is not. Islam is in the process of raw power seeking and hegemoney. It will use that power, not to get closer to God, or for the benifit of humanity, but to dominate. We have seen how Islam dominates. This is political and militaristic, not religious. Islam is just another form of government, bent on using force to get compliance, and collecting that everlovin tax. If you dont mind being subdued and subservient, and you dont mind paying for the priviledge, then let Islam dominate. If you love freedom, free expresssion, freedom of religion ect, then Islam must be vigorously resisted.

Posted by: duh_swami at March 5, 2006 11:55 AM

ALL, organised, man made religions, and all their prejudiced backwards bullshit, are mostly dangerous (with Islam being the biggest threat at the moment) and should die out. And I hope such crass (and plainly deluded) prejudices that they foster dies out too.
Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 3, 2006 09:11 PM
---------------------------

How acceptable is to attack all religions and want them dead???????

------------------------------
I believe it was 'the Texican' who went off-topic when he made typically prejudiced, bigotted remarks about books like 'My two Dads'!!
Or have we selective memory?
But raging homophobe 'Texican' takes time-out to attack them. And in fact Islamists would agree with him.
Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 4, 2006 04:53 PM
----------------

When you do not agree with someone, how acceptable is it to resort to calling that person perjudiced, bigotted, anti-gay, etc. and when challenge refuses to support his lies.

---------------------------

BUT it seems Jihad Watch has very much been taken over by rabid Christian fundamentalists who in fact do nothing but bring one type of religious oppression to replace another and quite frankly taint the whole idea that 'Jihad Watch' should stand for.
Posted by: DaveyFreak
-----------------

Davey Freak:

Your hate for religion clouds your senses. You have been brainwashed by the leftist liberal dogma to where you condemn all religions and those that stand up and defend their religion and so tell you. This rankles you.
------------------------

As I posted on 3/4/06:
I am willing to have peace between us and to agree to disagree and leave our personal beliefs out of our posts to each other.
The choice is yours.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: Texican at March 4, 2006 07:15 PM
------------------

Davey Freak:

You continue to attack and think you are innocent and you do not realize that you are also part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

Be a mature man and realize that Christianity and Christians will not go away. You will have a miserable life if you can not accept religious people.

I offered peace and you only offer vile retorts.

When you do not believe in freedom of religion but only in freedom from religion, your brand of freedom is no better than the brand of freedom offered by Islam.

I have had my say. I will refrain from responding to any additional leftists liberal dogma.

Davey Frank this may astonish you, but I also agree that America has a failed policy in Iraq and should cut our losses and leave and let the Muslims fight it out.

God bless you Davey Freak. I will pray for you.

The enemy is Islam.

Prepare, be armed, be ready.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 5, 2006 11:56 AM

Islamic Jihad doesn't happen in a bubble. And the presence of millions of inimical Muslims in Western domains didn't happen in a vacuum. Things like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianism, secular fanaticism, Western self-loathing (and all of its causes), Western decadence, moral relativism, Western hypocrisy, Western corruption, human nature, economics, oil -- ALL of these enter any thorough discussion about Islamic Jihad!

How could this site serve it's central purpose, and not somehow post articles which deal with every aspect of those topics (and more too) and how could posters not, then, bring up those topics in the threads?

I, for one, always try to tie my posts back to those themes and how they relate to the Muslim's Jihad against us. I think most posters do the same.

There are many who deliberately attempt to drive the threads into the ditch -- and for the most part, I think posters repudiate them quite well here...

Given the fact that the world is full of Islamic fascist enemies, dissemblers with hidden agendas, agents provacateurs, andother enemies of the West, isn't it axiomatic that the threads would appear EXACTLY as they do?

And as for the idea of limiting posts to 100 words or less -- I find this suggestion absurd. Blogs with similar policies usually read like a reader's digests for shallow thoughts and quips. I value the incisive posts which appear here regularly by all manner of posters.

Posters who proselytize, or cut and past, or are generally insane, should be barred from posting, and in general, I think they eventually do get dealt with.

Is there really a giant problem here?

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 12:03 PM

Sorry for being "part of the problem", but I
think there's something a bit self contradictory
about the request. It is stated that "broad brush"
characterizations of Mohammadans will be deleted,
but what constitutes a broad brush? If I say that
Mohammadans believe that the koran if God given
and that Mohammad's life serves as a model for
all mankind, is that broad brush?

There are always exceptions, and you can always
find the "muslim" like Irshad Manji who is
actually a decent person, but insisting that
generalizations be shunned is preposterous.

Posted by: American at March 5, 2006 12:26 PM

separate forum for JW member discussions?

Member discussions? Now those are off-topic. Off limits altogether, one might think.

Posted by: Interested at March 5, 2006 12:29 PM

Member discussions?
Lets be honourable about this.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 5, 2006 12:43 PM

Lets be honourable about this.

Indeed. Can't have things getting out of hand.

Posted by: Interested at March 5, 2006 12:46 PM

Yes, but if one gets banned, would they be dis-membered?

If they are allowed back, would they be re-membered?

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2006 12:49 PM

separate forum for JW member discussions?

Bad idea. It would blow up into a permanent tangle of precisely they sort of thing we're trying to move beyond here and derail the purpose of the site. Add to that the logistical problems of moderating such a space, and it would be what my dad calls a "s***-ugly mess."

What do we do at Jihad Watch? Watch Jihad. Focus.

Enough mincing words about "broad strokes" and such-- use common sense, one of the gifts of the civilization we're trying to save. Enough defending one's own occasions of going "breathtakingly off-topic" into one of the categories mentioned by Robert. Take two steps back (watch the cat), and err on the side of not "going there." Believe me, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you. ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 5, 2006 12:49 PM

True, true, jsla.
Cause and effect, inter-connectedness, abstractions, philosophical perspectives, propaganda, history, on and on. In order to understand the reality of Jihad, one must understand the reality of the world.

But, I acknowledge, sometimes, like when protecting an innocent life, the truth may be counter-productive.

I hope there's a counter-strategy I'm not privy to going on addressing the state of mind that has allowed and perpetuates the Islamic threat. And I don't consider ignorance of Islam by higher authorities to be that problem, I consider the path the "Western"( I don't really like that term, but I'm almost forced to use it) world has taken up to this point as the core of the problem. How else could that backwards-land(the M.E.) have developed into such a serious threat, especially in Europe? Ignorance? Maybe. How bout indifference, maybe even profit and power?
Shall we just continue on as if the past does not matter? I believe serious introspection and a re-evaluation of accepted "givens" in society/culture is in order. Clearly there are contradictions between words and reality that need to be faced, Islam just being the most obvious.

What is the main problem? The idea that truth is universally an arbitrary and subjective concept.
Which I believe leads to a denial of reality.

Posted by: kentim at March 5, 2006 12:58 PM

"romantic entanglements"

Is there some hanky panky going on here at jihadwatch that I am not aware of?

Can you please clarify here Robert?

I know that you say that you don't read the threads on this site very often but there are no soap operas that I can see on jihadwatch.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 5, 2006 1:05 PM

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I read the attack on Robert yesterday by Kafir Nonbeliever who basically said that he cannot fight along side Robert unless Robert agrees with K.N.'s anti Christian, pro-gay rights stance.

Whatever.

Robert had every right to disagree with this guy and express his beliefs, as a Christian. It would be nice to not have to listen to a pro-gay rant, as it is certainly more off topic than Christian advice, like Paolo points out, (and I agree with him,) so eloquently above, but we are what we are, and as long as we believe that Christianity has answers to this fight then we can't muzzle ourselves on the subject.

I often read here that the answer is secularism but I don't see anything in that approach that offers satisfaction that the human spirit yearns for, except that darker side of humanity that tells the creator, "I don't want to serve You, I don't want to be bothered with You. Leave me alone and if You won't leave me alone, I will pretend that You do not exist and I will tell everyone You don't exist."

One problem here; many of the Christians that visit this site EXPERIENCE God's existence everyday. To negate our experiences is to do the same thing that the Muslims do to all of us: disregard our beliefs in favor of their own. For the record, I don't care if you are not Christian. My gay friends know that I will defend their lives with my own because they are my friends and I love them but I do not have to agree with their gay beliefs because they are opposed to my own. They don't much like Catholicism but they love me so they leave me alone on the subject. We agree to not discuss it out of respect for each others beliefs. They know I'm Catholic and I know they are gay, and we love each other just the same. So I would appreciate not being told by a gay guy what I believe in as a Christian, since there are many different Christian beliefs and to lump me in with people that this particular gay guy had a bad experience with is simply, at best, inaccurate and at worst, dishonest. BUT, if he wants to say that here I can read it and ignore it and go on.

Christians can also provide valuable historical data here that provides Christian answers to the problems we face regarding the threat of Islam and what other Christians have done to successfully combat it. I don't know of any gay rights groups that have successfully eradicated Islam from their realm but I do know of Christian groups that have. If someone has information about that I would love to know about it.

To deny allowing us to discuss these things here is to stick one's head in the sand, or worse, deny freedom of expression, which is the HALLMARK of the enemy we are trying to defeat.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 5, 2006 1:11 PM

Hmmm...that didn't come out the way I intended. Here is the suggestion.

Main Website Articles/Comments:

Post the Articles and the comment section would be for the JW Staff and selected commenters. The purpose would be to educate. Sometimes I see a news article here and did not fully understand the implications until Hugh posts something for example.
I think Robert has already identified a few people here who would be very helpful in making comments.

A Separate *Open* forum for visitors (I guess members was not a great word) to post their comments. The forum could have a section for the articles like:

ACTION

Article that would require action

[forum posters give ideas etc.]

ARTICLES

Al Qaeda's Zawahri calls for strikes against West
[first post would have the article]

[posts from forum people commenting on articles or going off on tangents]

NEWS

Place where forum posters can put up links to relevant news articles

LIBRARY:

Posters could add links to books, articles, whatever on Jihad and related topics for background reading. This could even be topical.

I guess the forum could be unmoderated but perhaps a voluntary moderator could be selected to edit for words like Muzzies and perhaps language and make sure things don't get too out of hand...troll patrol etc.

I am a moderator of an Autism message board and doing that voluntarily. It is possible to get voluntary board moderating. Obviously JW staff would make the rules for the moderator to follow.

I think this split would be beneficial to both JW goals/reputation and allow peeps to say what is on their minds. The article could have a link to the forum to make commenting easy.

Posted by: Abby at March 5, 2006 1:16 PM

Free speech is the very foundation of freedom. But free speech cannot be defined within the borders of this website, which is only one of millions of outlets.

The ironical reason for honoring his request, and it's a good one, is that the basis of Islam is the constraint of free speech. Abu Afak. Asma Marwan. And so many more, including us, lately.

MORE MOHAMMED MORE HATE MORE ISLAM MORE KORANS MORE MOSLEMS MORE

Mohammed asked for self-censorhip. And got it. Spencer and Fitzkennedy only ask that irrrelevant threads be taken elsewhere. And they should get that. We're trying to spawn a resistance movement here. Focus.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 5, 2006 1:21 PM

"Hugh, you must be the only person who does not regard the Benes decree as odious and basically useless..."
-- from a posting above

Judging by 1) their statements or 2) their failure to condemn, or to express any reservations about, the Benes Decree(s) at the time they were put into force or 3) in the case of some Poles and others, their seeming acceptance, at times expressly, at times by failure to express the slightest disapproval of measures undertaken by their own countries (e.g. Poland), for similar considerations, eve if on a smaller scale, and they have never expressed any disapproval of those measures, quite a few people "do not regard the Benes decrees) as odious and basically useless."

These would include, among the statesmen of the period when the Benes Decree(s) were put into effect, every major statesman and political leader in the West, including:

Winston Churchill
Harry Truman
Charles De Gaulle
as well as many less celebrated political figures.

It would include every major Czech figure, in 1946, and in the sixty years since, including:

Tomas Masaryk (the son) and Eduard Benes
Jaroslav Siefert
General Ludovik Svoboda
Aleksandr Dubcek
Pavel Kohout
Milan Kundera
Vaclav Havel (who on a state visit to Austria did suggest that he did not entirely approve, not of the Benes Decree(s), but of aspects of their implementation.

No Czech appears to think that the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was either "odious" or "basically, useless" as the comment above suggests.

Others who are natives of countries with policies similar to that of postwra Czechoslovakia (i.e., policies of removal, or transfer, of large populations of ethnic Germans) and who nevre protested, even though some of them did find fault with other populatio transfers, or failures to undo them after the war -- causing, for example, the continuing exile of many of the Crimean Tatars -- include:

Czeslaw Milosz
Zbigniew Herbert
Wislawa Szymborska
Milovan Djilas
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Andrey Sakharov

One may imagine what those who lived through World War II, and survived, would have replied if, in 1946, or 1948, or 1958, one had come to them and insisted that they should protest that "horrible offense against justice" the Benes Decrees. I can imagine how those who had lived in Europe before the war and survived it in the United States or England, would have answered that question. Make your own guess as to what mild-mannered Einstein, Panofsky, Max Ernst, Alexander Koyre, Roman Jakobson, Vladimir Nabokov, and a cast of tens of thousands of refugees would have said if asked to comment on the expulsion, by the Czechs, of Sudeten Germans in 1946. They might dislike the way it was carried out. They might disagree with the inclusiveness of the decree. They might not approve of every detail of its execution. But the notion that they would have echoed revanchist circles in Germany, in declaring the Benes Decree(s) "odious" -- that is unlikely.

One other point. Discussing such a historical precedent is not the same thing as complete endorsement. By reminding people of something most had forgotten or had never known about, one tries to instill the notion that there have been all kinds of population transfers (Greeks-Turks, Hindus-Muslims, Jews-Arabs) and large-scale movements of populations, and that it is not only such places as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and so many other Arab Muslim states (that routinely expel large populations even of fellow Arab Mulsims for "security reasons") ), but large-scale expulsions of a population that was deemed a permanent threat to the security of the nation-state and the people whose political embodiment it was, have been undertaken, within the last half-century, by the most tolerant and advanced state in Central Europe.

By describing as well the justification for such measures, one helps others consider the reasonableness, or lack of it, of measures that some may regard as "unthinkable" and will keep insisting that we must never ever think about it, while others, noting what Masaryk and Benes did, and what the entire civilized world at the time supported, or did not deplore or think unthinkable, may find raising the matter useful.Very few Czechs feel guilty about the Benes Decree(s). And among that dwindling number even of non-Czechs who lived through that war in Europe, few who did so would agree with the proposition that no one in his right mind, morally speaking, could not find the Benes Decree(s) "odious." There are those among whom that proposition will be warmly greeted and applauded -- German revanchists, still peddling their accounts of German "victimhood" and the "terrible" crimes that "yes, we suffered too, perhaps we suffered the most." Their view of things, including their belief that the Benes Decree(s) is "odious and basically useless," is one that most of us will find distinctly unconvincing. And distinctly unappealing.

Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2006 1:34 PM

As one of the most relentless introducers of his own pet anti-capitalist unrelated-to-Islamic-Jihad topics, I find the post above by Paolo to be astounding, and ironic. However, I also notice the opportunity such posters provide for thoughtful and informative posts such as the one immediately above by Mr. Fitzgerald.

Isn't this the essence of the comments section here at this site? I hope it continues largely as it has always done.

And Mr. Fitzgerald's elan and acumen is a model for us all -- I am especially fond of his 'hot' prosaic style, never overheated, nor hysterical.

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 1:45 PM

OK, So what do we do?
All the items posted in this blog are very informative and mostly scary...
There have been many items here regarding certain governments and organisations and their lack of action regarding this menace.
But we all here, are guilty of the same thing!
WE JUST SIT AROUND TALKING ABOUT IT AND NOTHING ELSE!
I have the greatest respect for you Robert and I am glad people like you exist.
You say you don't read any of the members comments?
You're kidding me!
Like the film,The Life of Brian.
It's happening Reg!

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at March 5, 2006 1:45 PM

Texican: You really refuse to admit WHAT you are don't you?
You and people like you, hardline Christian fundamentalists, don't even have a right to bitch and moan about those other hardline fundamentalists of Islam.

Take the example of the cartoon fuss.
Sorry Texican but when YOU post stuff like this:

----when such individuals attack my God, my family, my country and my religion I will stand up and be heard----

You sound just like those who said the exact same things over the publication of the cartoons!!

You can't whine about the cartoons being freedom of speech and go on anti-islamic attacks about their attitude to those cartoons when you hold the same views when YOUR religion and God (or Prophet!) is 'maligned'!

You are so damn fanatical in fact that you consider any remarks about YOUR religion an 'attack on your country'!!!

Lets dig that hole for you a bit deeper:

----- You will have a miserable life if you can not accept religious people.----

Well by definition Islamists are religious people?
Funny i don't see any acceptance of them on your part!
Or YET AGAIN are you doing EXACTLY what hardline Islamists do and saying that YOUR religion is the only religion and all must bow down to it and let God into their lives or else they are damned?

THAT is EXACTLY the kind of unwanted, hardline religious arroagance and fanatacism that those Islamic pricks spew out!!

-----When you do not believe in freedom of religion but only in freedom from religion, your brand of freedom is no better than the brand of freedom offered by Islam.----

Are you still confused here? Islam is a religion. And you want it to die out and you want total freedom from it.
But you say I can't have the right to say i want to be free of Christian fundamentalism AS WELL AS Islamic fundamentalism!

Like I said before...the hypocrisy you show and the irony you miss of just how close you are to many of the (non-violence preaching) Islamic clerics is laughable!

Islam is the greatest threat to mankind this side of Global warming I agree totally.
But people like you and what you beleive in are not the kind of replacement those of us who are against such fanatical religious thinking want to see either.

You are the face that keeps 'Jihad Watch' mired in the false perception that it is simkply a fringe religious organisation full of extremists who want the OTHER extremists out of the way.
And as such it won't be able to move forward and gain the widespread, mainstream following and acceptance it needs to actually DO anything.
No texican...YOU are part of the problem and what's sad is that you can't see it.

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 1:56 PM

Assalma-laikum all,

I have to say a very honourable shukria (thank-you)to the folks at JW. They have done a great service for Islam...may Allah look upon them with favour for all their hard work.

Why?....To allow muslims to see comments made especially by citizens of Amrika will become critical to the umma in readiness for the future.

This site is as important to us muslim folk as it is to the greater West.

For me (and the people I tell about JW) there are three perspectives of particular interest which show up in the comments.

1) Historical ...and the skew that the JW "Islamist scholars" here put on it.....like not wanting to agree the inaccuracies of historical facts in the bible...."no it always has to be the Koran that is inaccurate"...even though several eminent muslim scholars have provided (divine)input...but still no sense of perspective.

2) Ridicule ...as the cartoon saga shows...this "faith-shaker" will be used again & again by the West. Also the perception that muslims are stupid, backward, inbreeding, and violent. Muslims are mooslims, towelheads, mohammedians etc. All very interesting information from the moderate folks of the West.

3) The future.... Western folks here talk about having guns at the ready (in confederate states like Texas particularly), mass deportations, reducing the ME to glass, sanctions etc. It also talks a lot about the lack of preparation of the West too....and the lack of knowledge about Islam to over 99% of the populations.

This provides a great deal of information to the people of Islam ...as muslims become more influential in the west...peaceful preparation for integration of Eurabia into Islam...and then moving onto the big one...all information is useful and important.

All muslims have to prepare for judgement day and be at the ready too. Allah ta'alah and Jesus will ask why we muslims were not better educated on that fateful day --- on those three points raised....and if we muslims answer...

"well actually we used to read Jihadwatch comments for knowledge"...

this may be an adequate answer even to Allah Ta'alah himself...as he is all knowing.

peace

Posted by: Naseem at March 5, 2006 2:01 PM

Please read it, and refrain from Christian evangelism, gay rights activism, creation vs. evolution debates, romantic entanglements, and other causes which, however worthy, detract from the purpose of this site.

Posted by Robert at March 5, 2006 08:26 AM

Here I must agree with what is being said, the premise of this site is to enlighten and discuss the threat of Islamofascism and how do we come up with practical solutions to a very real and dangerous threat. This is a war and one that on the face of it we don’t seem to be winning. This is I believe because of the schisms which afflict the culture we are trying to defend. By this I mean political correctness, right vs. left political view points and any other distraction you wish to name.

We need to focus on the threat at hand and come up with viable solutions; I applaud Hugh for raising the Benes decree as an example of practical thinking, for without crossing the PC lines that have been drawn in the sand we will remain in a state of disarray and impotent in the face of the dawa.

Paolo you say you are against any form of forced repatriation, but what other solution is there when confronting the ideology of Islam. Show me a moderate Muslim and I will show you taqiya masters or potential incubation of mujahideen within a few generations. The logical dictates of Islam in its present form leads to nothing else.

So here I disagree with Hugh about immediate withdrawal from the ME, it is no point arguing about how we got there, we are there now and anything less than a complete defanging of the beast will just lead to increased power for those that wish to wage the Jihad against us. The key to breaking Islam is removal of the mullahs that hold the reigns of the Islamocollective. We need to crush Iran militarily then swiftly move to the Saudis and Pakistanis. Let them build their cultures again from the rubble of their own theocracies, this will be the only way to induce a reformation in Islam.

Just to finish as I know this is a long post, I think the criticism of people putting extraneous links on this site is a little tough. I come to JW as a source of information and I don’t think that I have followed too many links that are not on topic in some form or another.

Posted by: km at March 5, 2006 2:12 PM

And again -- we see the most splendid in situ example of a Muslim mindset right here in this thread! of all places-- Who would want to miss reading posts like this to understand what we're dealing with in Islam, with the Muslim?

This Muslim attitude, shorn of all pretense except that of Islam, is so instructive... the gentle seeming greeting: "Peace be with you all... " then the screed, the ending with "Peace".

It's absolutely PERFECT!

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 2:14 PM

Davey Freak:

Islam is not a religion but a cult of murder and oppression.

Christianity does not beheaded people because individuals do not believe in our religion as does Islam.

Christians do not riot, kill people and destroy property over cartoons.

Christians do stand up and tell individuals like you that we have the right to be here in America, to believe as we wish and to tell you that you are wrong just as you scream and rant and rave that we have no right to believe in God or to so state our beliefs.

There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.

Davey Freak, you still refuse to see this because of your complete hatred of all religions. Your hatred has consumed you.

How sad.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 5, 2006 2:15 PM

Naseem muslims influence is only going to go so far in the western world and then you will hit a brick wall,muslims seem to think they will be able to push there religion into western countries with no limits and force people to change there systems to suit Islam well it will only go so far and people will dog there heels in and refuse to bow.

Posted by: stevenz at March 5, 2006 2:23 PM

What we continuously reflect here is the clashing differences between two civilizations, a coinage accredited to the Islamic umma, but quite appropriate. We comment passionately, and vigorously on defending, and expressing the differences between our foundations as we absolutely should.

Here we learn to recognize something that flies in the face of the character that we have forged for ourselves and from the environment that we grew up in, and that we so rightly are obliged to defend. Human rights, and freedom of expression, we should work to give dignity and quality of life to all who respect it.

We are learning that there is an ideology out there that wants to suppress these values that we hold so dearly and we have a clear duty to defend them not just for ourselves but the future generations of the free world as our for fathers have before us.

We cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope that it will all go away as many do. We must recognize its aggressive determinations to control the world with its Ideology and we need to confront it on every front.

We must not appease it, we must not ignore it, we must not compromise with it!

Posted by: Mackie at March 5, 2006 2:30 PM

This provides a great deal of information to the people of Islam ...as muslims become more influential in the west...peaceful preparation for integration of Eurabia into Islam...and then moving onto the big one...all information is useful and important.
Posted by: Naseem at March 5, 2006 02:01 PM

Here it is the face of Islam naked and exposed; it is precisely because of this that we are at war. Those that refuse to accept this premise and believe Islam can be transformed through dialogue are delusional.

Robert and the staff at JW the world owes you a big thank you for the work you are doing here.

Posted by: km at March 5, 2006 2:32 PM

Also the perception that muslims are stupid, backward, inbreeding, and violent.

That is not the perception that Jihad Watch promulgates. However, what you don't wish people to know is that Islam is a violent supremacist ideology. This is from the Koran

It is not for any prophet to take prisoners

until he has made a great slaughter on the earth.

You desire the passing fruition of this world,

But God desires the world to come.

One of the most eminent philosophers of the recent past, Eric Voegelin, comments dryly:

The taking for prisoners for sale is permitted only after an earnest of the spiritual intention has been given by a conscientiously extensive slaughtering of infidels.

The Ecumenic Age (LSUP, 1974)

As Indian once remarked that one could go and see what is claimed to be Mohammed's sword - something I hadn't known. But, he added, "You won't find a sword belonging to Jesus or the Lord Buddha".

However much the corners may get rubbed off Islam by time, forgetfulness, easy living, and ignorance of what the Koran actually says, the potentially for regression to the horrific violence the religion is based on is forever a potential menace facing the infidel world - the Dar al-Harb - and that such a regression is currently happening worldwide is an empirical fact evident in the news every day. You won't find a sword belonging to Jesus or the Lord Buddha. But you will find a Kalashnikov, an RPG 7 rocket launcher in the hands of fanatical jihadists everywhere. You'll find them calling at a school or a pizza parlour or a bus depot with a belt of semtex, too, bent on mass murder. Even the IRA or Eta never did that.

Most people in the West, regrettably, are intellectually lazy, and do not know that the root of the violence is in the religion itself. And what has been described by, I think, Hugh as "the smooth-talking spokesmen of taqia aren't about to enlighten them.

Heigh, ho - think I'd prefer tequila myself - while the infamous sharia law has not yet been enforced across Eurabia and it remains legal to drink it.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 5, 2006 2:40 PM

"I disagree with Hugh about immediate withdrawal from the ME, it is no point arguing about how we got there, we are there now and anything less than a complete defanging of the beast will just lead to increased power for those that wish to wage the Jihad against us. The key to breaking Islam is removal of the mullahs that hold the reigns of the Islamocollective..."
-- from a posting above

Where in the Middle East has Islam been most discredited? In Iran, where there is not a single American soldier. Where in the Middle East does Islam appear to be ever more important in political and social life? In Iraq, where women have been re-burqa-ed all over southern Iraq, vendors (often Christians) of alcohol murdered. There is no "defanging" to be done. Islam must be seen, by enough people within Islam, to be the source, the explanation, for Muslim failures and Muslim disorders. That cannot happen with outside intervention. It can happen if there is less, not more, intervention by Infidels. It can only happen if there is less, not more, Western foreign aid, which always ends up as a Jizyah-tax, constantly received, and more demanded, by the Muslim recipients as if by right, constantly given by Infidel donors as if they simply had no choice in the matter, lest their failure to come through create anger in the disappointed recipients. as if it could not be denied.

The Administration did not first carefully analyze the problem, nor did it use the last four years to study Islam, to relate the various instruments of Jihad to one another, to identify the most important of those instruments and the most important theatres of war. The most important instrument of conquest in Europe, which is the most important theatre of the world-wide Jihad, is demographic conquest, not military conquest. The most important military theatre is not Iraq, but Iran, not as a place to invade (there is no need) but as a place to disarm or rather to prevent from nuclear arming.

American soldiers in Iraq are now being held hostage to the obstinacy of an Administration that did not know, and still may not know, that "terror" is merely one weapon, and not always the most effective, to dismantle Infidel defenses to the spread of Islam, so that ultimately "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated." Along with the inability to create a cadre of officials well-versed in Islam, unfoolable and unflappable (which means lessons in taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and in selective and misleading quotation from the Qur'an and Hadith, by armies of Muslim apologists), the Administration's highest officials continue to utter nonsensical phrases about Islam. Most perhaps do not believe them, but by indulging in such utterances (perhaps in the hope that this will limit Muslim resopnses to policies), they are misleading their own still largely ill-informed public.

If they did not study Islam, they also did not study Iraq. Had they done so, they would have known that once the Sunni despotism was overturned, a despotism disguised as a supposedly non-sectarian Ba'athist rule open to all (well, open to all those, even Shi'a and non-Arab Kurds, willing to accept that Ba'athist totalitarian rule within which the real power was held entirely by, and completely for, a small group of Sunni Arabs), the Shi'a would, with or without American intervention and "democratic institutions" as a figleaf, take power. They constitute between 60 and 65% of the population. Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20%. Among the Arabs alone, the ratio of Shi'a to Sunni is 3-1. All the oil of Iraq is either in the Kurdish lands or in the south. Yet the oil wealth has gone not to that south, whcih has been kept deliberately poor, but to Sunni areas. And in 1991, during the last widespread Shi'a rebellion, hundreds of thousands of Shi'a were murdered. This was known to the American government, and it must have known as well that the Sunni-Shi'a split is some 1300 years old.

Yet it chose to ignore, or not quite grasp, the meaning of this 1300-year-old hostility, and to accept the assurances of Iraqis in exile, almost all of them secular Shi'a, who could tallk the talk of Western, rational, man, and having been out of Iraq for so long, may even have come to believe that their fellow countrymen would indeed feel liberated by the Americans, would themselves become, overnight or soon, Western rational men. Nonsense. It could never have happened, and those upon whose advice the Admiinistration relied, including Bernard Lewis who predicted in 2002 that any liberation of Baghdaad would make the celebrations in Kabul "look like a funeral procession," have much to answer for. But even Lewis and Scharansky (with his own simple-minded "democracies don't attack democracyies" idea) did not realize that their ideas, which were hedged about with their own more comlicated understanding of the world, were dangerous if given to a schoolboy who would simple-mindedly seize upon them, and in reducing them to the most elementary form, and obstanately clinging to them despite all the evidence that they were not relevant to the case, would continue to misallocate American resources to this venture, because that schoolboy, who happens to be president, simply could not acknowledge that the mistakes were not minor, were not about whether or not Muhammmad Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi secret-service agent, not about uranium ore sought in Niger, not about weapons of mass destruction (that was a reasonable assumption, and that was, in fact, the only reasonable assumption, even if it turned out to be a mistake, that can be adduced as a legitimate reason for this war), but about how to use the situation in Iraq to Infidel advantage.

There is only one way to obtain such an Infidel advantage. That is by withdrawing, at once, and not "when the Iraqis tell us to" (what kind of foreign policy is entrusted to the "Iraqis" to make for us? What kind of craziness are we permitting when the President says he will wait for "the generals" to tell him when "the Iraqis are ready" so that "as they stand up we can stand down" which means that those generals are merely to report on the readiness of Iraqis, and that Bush in turn will listen to them only on that -- as if the heart of the matter, the Bush notion that staying in Iraq to create a stable nation-state with Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a, all making their peace, makes sense from the Infidel point of view.

Oh, it makes sense -- if you are a sentimentalist and believe we the Infidels should best spend hundreds of billions of dollars making Iraq a nicer place rather than spending those hundreds of billions on solar, wind, and nuclear energy. It makes sense, if you believe that we are conducting a "war on terror" only, and not a war of self-defense against the Jihad, in all of its local, but intimately related, manifestations, and with its varied instruments, by no means all of them military in nature. It makes sense, if you keep prating about "we have to fight them there so as not to fight them here" because you fail to realize that in Western Europe, without which the West is unthinkable, and life for Americans would be greatly impoverished, and much more dangerous (who will inherit the weaponry, including the nuclear weapons, of islamized countries in Western Europe?), and really beleive it, and cannot bring yourself to take a different tack -- the tack that Sunni-Shi'a strife within Iraq is a good thing for Infidels, or at least not something to work hard to discourage and even to expend American soldiers' lives in such discouragement. And a free Kurdistan should not be discouraged, in order to preserve the borders of this artificial, three-vilayetted Iraq, but should be encouraged, and protected diplomatically and in other ways, because such a state will be a headache for Iran and Syria, and an inspiration to other non-Arab Muslims throughout the Muslim lands, beginning, but not ending, with the Berbers.

Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2006 2:42 PM

Mr. Spencer,
A year ago I found JW via the Daniel Pipes website. In the beginning I found it difficult to read the sometimes illiterate, proselytizing or just plain ridiculous postings. Since we are discussing an enemy whose religion is all encompassing I am not sure what would be considered off topic. Through my careful reading of postings at JW I have determined that the forces against us consider JW a grave threat to their movement. I have learned so much in my brief association here at JW and those lessons have come from many different contributors. It is very important not only to read, but to comprehend what is written and also how it has been written and what was not said. You can learn a lot from a rant. As in life all rational people must read between the lines in order to get the complete picture. Unrestricted free discussion is a powerful weapon in our struggle for the truth. Keep up the great work and we will someday see you in our history books.

Posted by: tgusa at March 5, 2006 2:53 PM

Texican:

---Islam is not a religion but a cult of murder and oppression.---

No. It's a RELIGION of murder and oppression.
A man made organised religion just like any other. And just as unwanted.
It just happens to be far more violent than the rest of them at the moment.

And not all Islamic nutters actually kill people either. But they do do exactly what you do.
They:
1) Say that their religion is the only true religion.

2) Attack people and call them misguided and doomed if they do not agree with their religion and embrace their God.

3) Cast down judgements on people based on what they see as the real truth written in some dubious holy book.

4) Say that people who don't agree with them are attacking their country.

I never said you were the same as the Islamist bombers and the be-headers.
But you're exactly like the Islamist one level down from tem. And just as deluded and hardline.

You are exactly what holds 'Jihad Watch' back and keeps it locked away in the shadows of religious fundamentalism.

If we are truly to protect The West (notice I simply said the West...not the CHRISTIAN West) from the evil extremism of the hated Islam we need place like 'Jihad Watch' to come out of the shadow of the cross and be seen as simply against Islam because of how bad Islam truly is. And not because it's seen to have a biased agaenda because Islam happens to go against Christianty.

Islam is bad enough, and as such the fight against it is right enough, without any hardline Christian agenda leading the fight against it!

Sadly it seems 'Jihad Watch' will always remain, at least in the public perception, as just another off-shoot of radical scum like Jerry Falwell and as such it will have no more validity than any hardline Islamic site or Baptist bullshit site.

YOU and those like you are tarnishing a site that is against one sort of extremism...with the stink of another. And that is fatal to the cause of ridding The West and protecting The West from the creeping, evil threat of Islam that is trying to rip apart our way of life.

I have no problem having to live with moderate Christianity (even though i disagree with much of what it stands for) and would choose it over Islam any day.
But i certainly hope that YOUR level of hardline Christianty joins Islam in the rubbish bin.

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 3:02 PM

Personally, I find that the "scroll down" button takes care of any comments that go off-track.

If Muslims posting, like Naseem, etc., whose
"religion" advocates genocide (although, if you are cowardly enough to convert under duress, or are one of the "People of the Book" who meekly surrender, they won't kill you... which leaves me way out in the theocratic cold... since I won't do the former, and am not part of the latter)... if Naseem, etc. were honest about Islam's dogmas, they would thereby be unable to leave any comments here, according to the Spencerian "No Genocide, Please" Doctrine.

Does the dictatorial demand of Islam to "convert or die" (-to a "Person NOT of the Book")- NOT constitute an institutionalized call for genocide?

Of the "genus" of non-Judeo-Christian humans?

I wish Muslim posters would spell that out at the beginning of all of their comments: Islam wants you dead if you will not convert.

Then we wouldn't need to let them spread the soft-soaping b.s. about the rest of their "faith"'s wonders and glories (treating women like half beings; reducing the age of marriage to 9 to match the lusts of their pedophile founder; etc.).

If Islam is NOT a de facto genocidal cult, what is?

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 5, 2006 3:04 PM

nariz / giouar, is that you?

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2006 3:04 PM

that schoolboy, who happens to be president, simply could not acknowledge that the mistakes were not minor

I think you're right, Hugh. Frankly, the more I find out about the nature and the history of Islam the more I think the coalition has blundered.

I notice that Niall Ferguson is slating President Bush in the Sunday Telegraph today. The article takes as its theme a speech of Gladstone's in which he attacks Disraeli's foreign policy. In fact, Ferguson is perhaps a little disengenous, because, as an historian, he must know that one of the chief bones of contention on foreign policy between Gladstone and Disraeli was that Gladstone wanted the jihad out of "the province they have desolated and profaned" - but, unaccountably, Ferguson fails to mention it.

As Chesterton had it:

In the lands where Christians were ...

In the little lands laid bare ...

I don't agree with everything Ferguson says, but I think it is an interesting article, and he is (regrettably) right on at least one thing:

The theory of a democratic peace is a chimera: give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 5, 2006 3:05 PM

I have never had any problem with the comments at this site (well, okay, aside from cut and pastes that are extremely lengthy and posted at every darned thread). Do the comments go off topic and wind up in debates between christians and atheists, leftists and rightists, gays and christians etc etc. Yes. But its usually after several dozen posts that have pretty much summed up all the possible perspectives one could have on the given article posted. I mean there's only so much one can say in response to an article that Hamas reaffirms its desire to drive all the Jews into the sea, for example. "Bastards" would be an on-topic comment, but after reading dozens of variations on that, I don't mind it when the discussion veers off somewhere, provided it is still remotely connected to any of the number of issues that jsla, in his 12:03 post above, correctly noted are indeed relevant to the overall context of the jihad. What I find amusing is why anyone should be bothered about posters debating these things between themselves when such debates usually only begin on threads that are already 50 posts long or longer and which would probably otherwise generate no additional comments at all. E.g - I noticed Archimedes on an old thread below telling jehana that they should probably cool their debate as its "off-topic" for the thread. But that's ridiculous. The thread is pretty much dead. Why shouldn't they continue their discussion? Noone else is "required" to continue to read the thread just because people are still posting on it. And that holds re the comments generally. I'm with jsla on this one, "Is there really a giant problem here?"

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2006 3:17 PM

What has America and the World gained from the war in Iraq?

2,300 (+/-) dead American Soldiers. How many allied soldiers have been killed?

$200 billion in wasted taxes that should have been spent on the Gulf Coast and like Hugh stated on energy independence in America.

Sadam is out of power, but not executed.

Equalized the playing field between the Sunni and the Shia.

$60/barrel of oil. Who is making the profit on this?? And it is not just the Middle East.

There is an opinion that the War in Iraq has stabilized the ME. Does anyone really believe that the ME is stabilized.
--------------

It is time to subtract ourselves from Iraq and let the Sunni and Shia determine the leadership for Iraq.

Tyrants and the nations that they led will never join the civilized world until totally defeated and then rebuilt as shown with German and Japan after WWII. German was not totally defeated after WWI and WWII was the result.

What have we truely gained by the War in Iraq.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 5, 2006 3:19 PM

Also, I certainly would not want to see an end to people linking to articles that are related to the jihad but possibly off-topic for the particular thread. I often scroll through the comments at LGF looking for just such links. LGF's daily open-topic thread has made that easier. Spencer might consider adding a similar daily open thread for such links here.

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2006 3:23 PM

Texican. Daveyfreak.

Gentlemen:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pot_v._Kettle

I hope you see what I'm getting at here, with all due respect.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 5, 2006 3:29 PM

---What have we truely gained by the War in Iraq.---

Nothing, you're right.
But there was only a war in Iraq in the first place (no 9/11 link, no WMD's) because radical, hardline, "I discuss my actions with God" President Bush took us there!
When we should have had our resources ready to take out the Iranian leadership.

Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam! And that damage is all the things listed in your post 'Texican'.

Seen the light yet?

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 3:38 PM

Hugh your argument is a sound one and on many points I agree. I do however feel that I should clarify my statement about our intervention in the ME. Geopolitically we are positioned such that militarily we can deliver and now project power over many countries critical in propagating the dawa in its present form.

I would agree with you that nation building for the sake of currying favors with the Islamists is a useless and expensive strategy. What I am advocating is that we press the advantage that we have so far won and lance Iran and Saudi Arabia like the festering boils that they are. I believe it is no accident that we have taken and hold countries on the flanks of these most odious of enemies.

It is time that we use this geopolitical advantage to drive at the very core of Islamist infrastructure, we should engage in prolonged effective strikes against all the countries that are part of and supporting the Islamic Jihad. Then we should just pull out and wait, I believe doing this will kick start a chain of events that will lead to the cleansing of Europe’s demographic problems as the mindset of the Islamists will be to strike at the west the only way they know how, terrorism against soft targets.

This will force a reevaluation of the merits of multiculturalism which has let Islam flourish in most European countries and policies will be introduced to combat its spread. I know it sounds a brutal solution but the demographic bomb ticking under the EU right now is such that we can not afford to wait to take action. Should we only half finish what we have started in the ME we will only pay for it in the years down the road.

It is for this reason alone that I support ongoing military action, but only if the military is allowed to do its job without fighting with one arm behind their back. We should deal with the consequences of this action as they arise. Any consequences that do arise are likely to be less of a problem than a global caliphate, which is well on its way to establishment with the creation of Eurabia.

Maybe I am wrong but the clock is ticking and I am not sure we have the luxury of just being able to pull out and hope that things go our way. Sadly I also fear that the political will is such that we will continue down the current path we are on, trying slowly to turn the ummah into some democratic paradise that suits our needs.

Conclusion: We should do the job militarily, which if prosecuted to the full extent of our capabilities should take very little time, if this is not possible then I agree with your premise that a strategic withdrawal and containment could be the only solution but this will in my lowly opinion only lead to eventual victory for the Jihad.

Posted by: km at March 5, 2006 3:39 PM

To All:

I have tried to back off from DaveyFreak several times and yet he still attacks and issues false unsupported statements as is the SOP for leftist liberals.

I have no control over what he posts, but only on what I post.

As Shinolite has stated, it is impossible to deal with the Kettle or Pot because they can not see that he is also black. Pot_v._Kettle has some funny spots and also contains meaning.

Enough said about this. DaveyFreak you can continue your triade if you wish.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 5, 2006 3:42 PM

Yojimbo -- very interesting link to Ferguson's article.

He also states: "Seldom in the annals of US foreign policy has an administration been more guilty of inept execution than this one [bringing "democracy" to Iraq, Afghanistan]..." And while this in part may seem to contradict Gladstone's so-called "third principal", that is to "keep the other powers of the world as far as possible in harmony with one another" I subscribe (hopefully, without sounding too Panglossian) to the idea that the US or someone needed to do exactly as we have done in order to learn exactly what we will learn...

Even if we only conclude that "The theory of a democratic peace [in Islam] is a chimera: give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants", I put forward the idea that such a conclusion is priceless.

What would have been better than the course the US took? Business as usual after 9/11? French wheedling? German blandishments? Brussels appeasement and unfettered UN surrender? Russia's corruption? China's? These paths would have only resulted in a simulacrum of understanding Islam...

I, for one, am thrilled that we took a stick and stuck it into the hornet's nest -- we now witness them for exactly who and what they are. Islam has been "outed".

Or perhaps I am Candide.

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 3:44 PM

"various agendas that have little or nothing to do with the common defense we need to be presenting against the global jihad."

All of us will propose different solutions, depending on our world view. I think as long as this is done calmly and politely, with respect for other people's different proposed solutions,and by giving some useful facts, this can only be beneficial.

Showing different perspectives on this site has many benefits:

1. It shows that a concern about Islamism exists across the political spectrum.

2. It encourages more people to join this movement.

3. It defends one of our most basic purposes: freedom of speech.

4. By discussing many solutions, we are more likely to come up with the right ones.

I don't mind people posting, say, anti-gay comments if they truly think this is related to the topic. I've in the past then just briefly posted pro-gay ones (definitely related to a fear of Islamism) to balance the thread. This is not generally my 'agenda', just the aim of making this site representative of a wide variety of thos opposing Islamism.

Posted by: Lilith at March 5, 2006 3:52 PM

----I, for one, am thrilled that we took a stick and stuck it into the hornet's nest -- we now witness them for exactly who and what they are. Islam has been "outed".----

That certainly applies to Afghanistan, a direct link to 9/11 terrorist base.
That does NOT apply to Iraq!
Iraq is in fact a distraction from 'the hornet's nest' and has utterly wasted the men and resources on NOTHING that should have been used to fight back after 9/11.
And that is all down to Bush because 1) he had a personal family beef with Saddam after the first Gulf War.
and 2) he's a deluded fantasist who makes decisions after discussing thaings with God!!

IF Bush truly wanted to fight the correct fight after 9/11 and enter the RIGHT 'hornet's nest' he would have invaded Saudi where almost all the 9/11 scum came from!!!
And YOU, ME and all of us who are honest...know that!

Like I said Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam!

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 3:57 PM

Yes, Lilith. I have written here for the longest time that we don't yet know exactly how to contend with what I call the "primitive eating machine of Islam". It has shown it's barbaric effectiveness at gobbling up other formerly great world powers -- why not us too?

Why not? Perhaps because democracy and freedom of speech truly are best! What a notion! But I believe in it. That includes the right to say absurd things, but then be excoriated in the public arena if I have said something stupid or ignorant or altogether false. Sometimes here the posters just talk at each other (just like in real life -- go figure) and generally such empty bloviation leads no where. But persons certainly have that scroll wheel -- and no one has yet abridged their index finger or their mouse...

I am also convinced that we don't yet have the answer to counter EFFECTIVELY against the forementioned eating machine -- It's deft at turning our strengths into weaknesses if we allow it -- it's deft at duping the dupable, and it's deft at acting with complete barbarity and ruthlessness to acheive its goals. I have also compared it to an infestation of sea urchins on a vibrant reef -- the reef simply can't fight back -- the urchins eat and eat and eat until the reef simply disappears -- as Byzantium did, as Persian did, as so many others did under Islam...

But we are not Persia. We are not Byzantium. And I am convinced that, in the end, Islam will be defeated, and we will be the ones to do this signal service for all humanity. How? Don't know yet. But we're working on it...

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 4:01 PM

Naseem, I am very impressed with your ignorance. Please allow me to correct some of the misconceptions you have aquired. The Q'uran abounds with innaccuracies, from the "sun sets in a muddy pool" to saying that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and the He did not prophesy His own death on the cross or His resurrection from the dead. You call Mohammed a prophet, yet there is not one single prophecy in the Q'uran to prove him a prophet. If Jesus Christ was wrong in any of His prophecies, then the Q'uran is wrong to call him a prophet. The only place you will find first hand, eye witness accounts of what Jesus Christ said is in the bible.
The major flap over the cartoons was caused by Danish Imams who lied and took cartoons that never appeared in the Danish press and circulated them with the ones that did in the Islamic world simply to arouse trouble. Muslims seem to have no problem with cartoons showing Bush to be a Nazi, a dog, Jews as pigs, etc. As for inbreeding, 7 out of 10 of the countries with the highest percentage of birth defects per capita in teh world are Muslim nations where marriages among relatives are often arranged between families. This accounts for at least 20% of known birth defects in those nations. No Muslim nations have freedom of press, freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Despite what the Q'uran says about Muslims being superior, every Muslim nation, even those with vast incomes from huge oil reserves, is a third world country compared to the living standards in the West. All the technilogical advances of the last 200+ years (airplanes, radar, telephone, radio, television, computers, airconditioning, automobiles, all mechanical, electrical, medical, scientific, etc.) were made by Western civilization, not one single one of note came from any Muslim nation. Make of that what you will, but I see no evidence of Muslim "superiority".
There are no "Confederate" states in America. The Confederacy was defeated and ceased to exist in 1865, when America abolished slavery. In Arabic teh word "abeed" means both "slave"and "black". Muslim nations like Sudan, Senegal and Mauritania (and possibly Saudi Arabia and others) still have slavery, and see nothing wrong with it because Mohammed had slaves.
I know of many Muslims in America who own guns, not just people in "Confederate" states. People everywhere own guns in America. If there is distrust here for Muslims, it is because Muslims steered planes into buildings on 911 yelling "allah akbar", and because of the 4,000+ attacks that have been made by Muslims against Westerners and Christians in other countries since that day. It was not Christians burning, looting and killing in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain and France recently. Christians did not bomb trains in Spain or busses in England. The bible does not command us to murder to make converts as the Q'uran commands Muslims to do. Unlike Muslim nations, we have laws that treat all our citizens as equals, and that includes women and people of color. I also personally know several Muslims who converted to Christianity because the claims in the Q'uran and the hadith could not stand up to the truth. You are partially correct that Muslims will be judged by Jesus Christ. ALL people will be judged by Him, not just Muslims, and the question you will have to answer when you see Him face to face and look at the wounds in his hands, feet and side, is "Why did you reject Me?"
As for Muslims ruling the world one day, read the book of Revelation about what happens in the battle of Armegeddon. That is real prophecy.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 5, 2006 4:03 PM

"What I am advocating is that we press the advantage that we have so far won and lance Iran and Saudi Arabia like the festering boils that they are."
-- from a posting above

The American misallocation of resources in Iraq, and a policy toward Iran that is inhibited by fear of retaliation, either directly from Iran, or from Iranian agents in Iraq, or by Iranian-connected Iraqis, against American soldiers now in Iraq, is not an "advantage" to be pressed.

You mention Iran and Saudi Arabia. These are the two countries that have benefited the most from the removal of their enemy, Saddam Hussein. He went to war against Iran. He threatened war against Saudi Arabia, and had he digested Kuwait, might some day have declared it. It is important that both Iran and Saudi Arabia not be permitted to retain whatever enhanced security that the removal of Saddam Hussein gave them.

How to undo it? Let the Sunni-Shi'a split within Iraq end in outside aid, for both Sunnis (largely from Saudi Arabia, but with Egypt and Syria and Jordan contributing volunteers) within Iraq, and for Shi'a. Men, money, materiel,let into Iraq in a proxy war, just as the war in the Yemen in the late 1960s was a proxy war between the horrible Saudi regime, and the horrible regime of Nasser -- and both were kept occupied, and to some degree drained, as a result.

There is no "boil to be lanced." The metaphor does not apply to Islam, and the tenets of Islam. There is nothing to be taken care of at one fell swoop. Rather, many decades of the Infidels refusing to concede, refusing to yield, and taking measures to secure their own lands, and to do nothing to remedy or amerliorate the situation in lands under Islam, so that Muslims themselves will ultimately be forced to confront the connection between the tenets and attitdues that Islam inculcates or promotes, and the political despotism, economic paralysis, social and intellecutal stagnation, that characterize the Muslim countries, and that arises out of those tenets, and those attitudes.

What is wrong with the Muslim peoples and polities is -- Islam. The more this is realized, first by Infidels, and then by the more advanced Muslims, the better for us. And in the end possibly the better for Muslims. For who, if he were genuinely wishing Muslims well, would not wish for them one thing -- less Islam?

Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2006 4:05 PM

I’m not saying this to be mean Lulu. I enjoy your posts. I ask only that you open your mind a little.
Posted by: butterfly [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 10:15 AM

l do not take it that Butterfly, l grew up with a large family, five older brothers one older sister, and l remember very heated discusions at diner time , yeah you guessed, politics, religions.. so that is how l learned to fight back.. lol..
I think many write off Bush as stupid, but he knows by introducing democracy in the middle east, "it will destroy islam" as it is now. the two dont mix. so they have to reform, or we will destroy their religion... sell them BigMacs for a start.. bring in Wal Marts,..throw in some Rock Bands, Rap music and the best of all the sins.. some real good Jazz!
l forgot about Country Western, but that would get them going and we dont need that.. no we destroy Islam with Western values of democracy, freedom, education, literacy, especially for women. they will fight to learn and throw their bourqa's off at the immans..you will see it soon in Iran! they are fed up with the culture of death.. just needs a litte more help from friends! lol..
l am still kind of guess Robert's statement on this romantic stuff..cant find this out.. maybe it
is that we are trying to find what Hugh looks like? LOL..

Posted by: Lulu at March 5, 2006 4:13 PM

Awww, BS. I think Christianity should be not only allowed here, it should be pushed here. muslims should be shown the marked difference between islam and Christianity at every turn. Also if you don't believe in God, so what? Is reading something that a Christian writes going to cause you permanent injury? Are you that vulnerable? Just scroll on by......

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 5, 2006 4:14 PM

DaveyFreak quotes the following:

"Like I said Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam"!

Your comment is a classic example of using the fight against Islamic terrorism, as an excuse to rant against Christianity. I'm sure those Muslims who suffered under Saddam disagree with your sentiments, for obvious reasons.

The fact is, extreme Islamism is against everyone, be they Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, Hindu and Aethiests...et al.

Your blindness to the truth in your hate of a particular religion, merely looks extremely foolish and completely misses the point of the issue of Islamic terrorism and extremism.

Posted by: Ken at March 5, 2006 4:15 PM

If we succeed in triggering an antidote to Islamic totalitarianism in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will be a success. If we fail to, and in so failing, lose all desire to ever attempt to do it again, now understanding the impossiblity of such an endeavor, it will be a success.

Either way -- when Muslims decided to attack with such vicous abandon across the globe and particularly in NY on that day, when they decided to throw the gauntlet down against the rest of the world, thinking it was time, not knowing that perhaps it was a decade or two early, on the day when they took us on, the day they put their putrid dreams in motion, they also sealed their doom.

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 4:16 PM

IF Bush truly wanted to fight the correct fight after 9/11 and enter the RIGHT 'hornet's nest' he would have invaded Saudi where almost all the 9/11 scum came from!!!
And YOU, ME and all of us who are honest...know that!

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 03:57 PM

This should indeed be the final goal, the toppling of Islam from within its power base i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we should keep in mind that it is easy to say this, it is another to carry it out logistically. Degradation of and taking of Iraq I believe was a necessary step in the strategy to tackle Islam.

The only issue now is can we use the strategic advantage we have gained. I am predicting that Israel will not sit by and let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. They will strike in the next few weeks, which will force Iran to retaliate we can then use this as a pretext to toppling the Iranian regime from bases with in Iraq and Afghanistan. Initiation of hostilities by the Israelis will cause other fundamentally Islamist countries to ally them selves against the attack against the umma, which will open them up militarily as well.

Be patient DaveyFreak the Saudis time is coming if we can maintain the will to stick out the fight.

Posted by: km at March 5, 2006 4:19 PM

And for the record, Lulu, you're worst sin in my opinion was blaming 9/11 on America, as you did in another thread. It's that kind of swill which, if posted, must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms. It was done because you took such umbrage at a few posters saying "Shame on Canada" for advocating that terror sympathizing book. I reiterate -- Shame on Canada! And shame on Lulu for uttering her sewage.

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 4:20 PM

(should she be banned? No. Let her utter such things, and be known for her thoughts on the subject)

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 4:23 PM

I've always agreed with the idea that If something offends you, your beliefs must not be very strong. However I am learning today that there is a substantial difference between being offended and Defending, and being offended and attacking.

Texican is providing a good example of the West, Defending.

Davey is providing a good example of.... well. Look at the hysterics in the Cartoon Jihad.

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2006 4:23 PM

Bohemond_1069 wrote:

"As for Muslims ruling the world one day, read the book of Revelation about what happens in the battle of Armegeddon. That is real prophecy."

In Norse mythology the end of the world is described to be a winter so cold that it kills all life, the Fimbul winter. I the Bible the world perishes in flames. This sort of gives you an idea about where on the planet the peopel who make up these end-of-the-world fantasies, lived.

Posted by: odin, king of gods at March 5, 2006 4:25 PM

"Thread akhbar!" (this thread is great)

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 4:27 PM

I look forward to an unpublished essay on the letter "k" (by the sinologist Nancy Berliner) being -- published.