| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update from Iraq. From AP:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two suicide attackers wearing women's cloaks blew themselves up Friday in a Shiite mosque in northern Baghdad, killing at least 46 people and wounding scores, police said. It was the second major attack against Shiite targets in as many days....The violence came as U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned that Iraq faces the possibility of sectarian civil war if efforts to build a national unity government do not succeed, and that such a conflict could affect the entire Middle East.
Police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said the blasts occurred at the Buratha mosque, which is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the main Shiite party.
First reports said the explosions were caused by mortar fire, but al-Mohammedawi said police had confirmed they were suicide attacks.
The attack occurred as worshippers were leaving after Friday prayers, the main weekly religious service. Earlier Friday, the Interior Ministry cautioned people in Baghdad to avoid crowds near mosques and markets due to a car bomb threat.
Posted by Robert at April 7, 2006 11:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
BBC reports: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4887856.stm
I dispair of this.
Posted by: mazztr![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 7, 2006 12:09 PM
"Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned that Iraq faces the possibility of sectarian civil war if efforts to build a national unity government do not succeed, and that such a conflict could affect the entire Middle East."
-- from the article above
Why "warned"? Why not "foresaw" or "predicted" or simply "said"?
at April 7, 2006 12:18 PM
Proving once again that islam is the perfect tool for human turmoil.
This so called "religion of peace" is the carefully laid infrastructure of Satan.
at April 7, 2006 12:20 PM
I don't think they will ever be happy. They are always going to fight amongst themselves. It's in their genes. I have come to the conclusion that they really enjoy chaos and killing. They prove it every day.
Posted by: freewoman at April 7, 2006 12:32 PM
Citizens were urged to “be cautious, and to avoid gatherings or crowds while leaving markets, mosques and churches.”
Right --- "Churches" as if there are Churches in Iraq, what, maybe one or two for every 500 Mosques?
"religiously based militias"
"armed militias"
"unauthorized military formation"
"insurgent commanders"
We won't find the word "Islam" or "Islamist" in this article
At least 50 killed in attack on Baghdad mosque
Posted by: Report at April 7, 2006 12:35 PM
NoMo, how do you think we are going to combat the jihad ideology by declaring that it is the infrastructure of Satan? That kind of thing might wash in America, but Europe is where this creed is gaining a foothold, and Europe doesn't buy into talk of Satan quite as easily as the USA. I don't mean to sound at all critical of the US here, I love the US very much, and have lived there for parts of my life, but here in Europe comments about Satan will decidedly not help the cause in my estimation. (I'm not offering my opinion on the question of satan either, I'm merely pointing out that we have a battle to win, and not many on Europe's frontline will rally to the cause if they believe it is satan they are arguing against!)
Posted by: Gharqad Tree at April 7, 2006 12:37 PM
Gharqad Tree,
While I was voicing my own personal opinion out of frustration and despair,
I do see what you are getting at. I know the world leaders can not use this
kind of language, much to the frustration of some posters here. There needs to
be at least an attempt to try to find common ground among all of the opposing
forces. At the same time, I seriously doubt that there will be a rational
solution to this brewing storm, in part because it is a carefully laid infrastructure.
I hope I'm wrong...
at April 7, 2006 12:50 PM
Gharqad Tree, that's part of the problem in trying to coordinate a defense by the western world against Islam. With Europe's athiestic outlook, and America's religious one, we probably will never really agree WHY we must resist jihad, only that it must be done for our future. Will the end justify the means? Can we agree to disagree to achieve a common cause? Or will we in the west, to the delight of Muslims, fight about the wording? Divide and conquer has been known to work. I have to wonder, though, which group has more influence, if any, on Muslim minds. The ones who totally refute that their god even exists, or the ones who agree a god exists, but disagrees with their methods and extremism?
Posted by: Trodat at April 7, 2006 12:58 PM
This proves even more that religious/governmental rule is NOT what the Iraqis need. Ayatollah Sistani can call for a "fatwa" against homosexuals in Iraq, but he won't call for one against the insurgents that threaten to bring about a civil war within Iraq.
The new Iraqi government must be formed without interferance from all religious, Islamic fundalmentalists. Religion can guide an individual, not a country. our personal beliefs are just that, PERSONAL!
Islam dosen't recognize that simple fact. Islam bullies its believers into a lifestyle whether they want to or not. The proof is in the pudding. Just read the teachings of Muhammad in the koran and the study of his life in the hadith. Islam is the sick reflection of a sociopathic madman. With ideas to rule the world and bend it to his vision of how the world should be in his eyes.
Once again, I have to say that the Iraqi people will have to give up Islam as far as the new government and legislative business of running the country is concerned. If not, they will be run by totalitarians in religious robes, forcing their religious hang ups on the people. This is not freedom. This is totalitarianism, dictatorism.
And what you'll have is Sistani running Iraq, not the elected President or Prime Minister.
Religion and politics are never to mix. Like an acid and a base.
at April 7, 2006 1:09 PM
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also warned that conducting martyr operations while dressed in women clothes may result in the martyr's not getting his allotment of virgins and getting boys instead.
Posted by: Anti-PC at April 7, 2006 1:12 PM
To Muslim jihadists the end ALWAYS justifies the means. Hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims are of no consequence if they are replaced by billions of 'reverts' after Islam conquers the world.
at April 7, 2006 1:15 PM
This latest attack today is it. 70 plus dead in the Shia Mosque. No more talk of making progress, democracy projects ect. If the odd's were 95 % in favor of Hugh's civil war prognosis and 5 % in favor of W's utopian dream, this tips the equation in favor of worsening civil war. Look a. the Shia's will look to their own militias--not the governmens, b and c--even more true for the Sunnis and Kurds. All good will is lost. the Christians, the white collar docs, teachers ect . . . 'the good guys' will all leave--go to Jordan, the US, just get out of dodge. If W's goal was to create and perpetuate the Sunni-shia divide, he gets the gold star. He may be an annoying duface, but I like John Kerry's recent plan. Out of Iraq by April 15 if no government formed, and if there is a government, out by December 15. Sounds good to me . . . maybe Mr. Swift Boat, reporting for duty, has been reading Jihad watch.
Posted by: biorabbi at April 7, 2006 1:23 PM
biorabbi, I'm afraid no matter how much you dislike Dubya, he didn't 'create' the sunni shia divide. That was created 1400 years ago, and they are always looking for any excuse to slaughter each other. Perhaps that's why so many Muslims seem to live under dictatorship. They need the stronger brutality to keep a rein on they own instincts.
Posted by: Trodat at April 7, 2006 1:29 PM
In my country far far away from this a woman is raped because she had the audacity not to wear a scarf over her head, if l was French l would care even less about this monotonous occurance that is Iraq. Pfft!
Posted by: stranger at April 7, 2006 1:53 PM
Bush did not create the conditions for enmity, murderous enmity, between Arabs and Kurds, or between Sunni and Shi'a Arabs. All he did was remove the murderous despot who, in the name of a pseudo-secularist, and pseudo-pan-Arab ideology (one created in Damascus, and suitable because of local conditions only for Syria and Iraq, where the ruling class in each country did not wish to emphasize Islam because its own brand of Islam or quasi-Islam -- Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq -- were definitely in the minority).
Both the sectarian and the ethnic divisions in Iraq go back to the beginnings of Islam. From the very beginning, despite its universalit pretensions, Islam always regarded the Arabs, the "best of peoples," to whom the Qur'an was revealed, and to Muhammad, an Arab whose acts and sayings and even silences make up the Hadith, which form the Sunna. Qur'an and Sunna --that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know, if you are not John Keats on Hampstead Heath or beside the Spanish Steps, but a Muslim anywhere. The Arab mistreatment and mass murder of the Kurds did not come out of nowhere. It comes out of the Arab supremasit ideology that exists, and that uses Islam as a vehicle for its expression.
Similarly, the Sunni war on the Shi'a goes back to the days of the rightly-guided caliphs, and Ali, and Hussein, and the matter of succession to Muhammad. That all occurred in the 8th century, a thousand years even before the United States came into being. The Bush Administration, with its extraordinary blend of an arrogant ignorance with a polypragmonic impulse --did not, and does not, understand Islam, and the nature, scoope, and instruments of Jihad, nor does it understand Iraq, and how those sectarian and ethnic divisions can be exploited, not by dong anything but by leaving, to further spread division and demoralization within the camp of Islam.
It takes real stupidity for everyone in the Administration, and everyone outside the Administration that is critical of the Iraq policy, to avoid seeing this.
But everyone -- that is, almost everyone -- has proven equal to the task.
Civil war in Iraq, of some duration and some violence became inevitable once Saddam Hussein and his regime were removed. He held the Kurds and the Shi'a within his grip through mass murder and mass intimidation. Was that something that should have been honored, and Saddam Hussein left alone?
From 1991 on, with American air cover protecting them, Kurds in Iraq became accustomed to their autonomy, and now will settle for nothing less than independence. Why should they? Why should they be forced to exist with Arabs who have persecuted them and murdered them? And arabized historic Kurdish lands, and for decades approriated the oil revenues from oil under Kurdish lands? Why?
And why should the Shi'a, who endured discrimination and contumely during the entire history of modern Iraq, whose stunted frames and shorter stature reflect their poverty, even as the oil under their lands, too, was sold to benefit the Sunni elites in Baghdad, during the time of the monarchy, and then Qassem, and then the Ba'athists ending with that strange amalgam, Saddam Hussein?
We will of course be treated -- we are already being treated -- to those who say "we broke it, we own it" (a letter by one Irwin Weisbrot"in today's New Duranty Times repeats this phrase). Friedman was fond of it, but now he is pretending he never uttered such a vacuity, and has gone to other quarter-truths and vacuities (Friedman is wrong even when by accident, he sometimes hits upon something that sounds sensible -- he never quite gets anything right. He can't.) No doubt all kinds of people, wishing to use whatever they can against the Administration, will insist that "we can't leave." There is the appalling non-realist "realist" General Zinni, who thinks "we just can't pull out." There is the appalling non-realist Lawrence Wilkerson, who said that if we "pull out" we would have to come back in in a few years with "five million troops."
The confusion is confounded because those who want out mostly want it for the wrong reasons, and then wish to follow a withdrawal, many of them, with a course of appeasement toward Iran and toward Islam. The so-called "realists" of the Zinni-Brzezinski-Wilkerson school, who so love attacking Rumsfeld (god knows he deserves attack, but not for any of the reasons they give -- and by all accounts, he wanted to get in and out of Iraq fast, and it was Bush himself to insists on this cockamamie democracy business), are also wrong.
There is one correct way of looking at, and delaing with, Iraq. Google "Light Unto the Muslm Nations" and you will find it, over and over again.
Posted by: Hugh
at April 7, 2006 1:54 PM
For some terrible reason, this fine mosque explosion harkens me back to Ayotollah Khomeini's funeral. The sight of hundreds of thousands of crazed Perian Moslems passing the old fart's cadaver about mosh pit-style, well, now that was entertainment.
Nobody can entertain like your Moslem. Nobody.
MORE MOSLEMS MORE ENTERTAINMENT MORE PRODUCTION VALUES MO MO MO MO
I know JW is tight on the budget, but it'd be great if they could set up a Islam Picture Video & WAV Page so that we anti-Dhimmis could take multimedia strolls down memory lane.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 7, 2006 1:56 PM
>>"Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also warned that conducting martyr operations while dressed in women clothes may result in the martyr's not getting his allotment of virgins and getting boys instead."
Almost. Try, "Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also warned that conducting martyr operations while dressed in womens' clothes may result in the martyr going to Paradise *as a woman.*"
That'll stop that type of murder bombing cold.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at April 7, 2006 1:57 PM
>>Try, "Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also warned that conducting martyr operations while dressed in womens' clothes may result in the martyr going to Paradise *as a woman.*"
That reminds me of that strange story a few days ago about the five Saudi women who went abroad for a sex change. Will Allah be fooled, do you think?
at April 7, 2006 2:04 PM
Apart from herrendously killing all the innocents here...can't these bastards see the bigger picture. That they are doing untold harm to the muslim umma....to Islamia.
As brother of the umma Mohideen says in the umma there should only be muslims....no sunni, shia bhoras, or even Ahmadi. We need to be at peace within the umma.
How in allah's SWT name are we to bring Islam to the West if this horror & stupidity goes on.
Oh...this makes me angry....the bigger picture is more important than their little local picture.
They need to know that "From an inch away a goat looks just like a sheep".
Posted by: Naseem at April 7, 2006 2:12 PM
Naseem,
Oh, Islam is being brought to the west even as we speak.
Through tv, and video, and internet sites.
We can read the words of the ummah at various places like memri and various muslim websites.
Occasionally, we find a logical, introspective, even friendly voice. One we would welcome as a friend and compatriot.
Most of the time, however, we see Islam "undressed" as it were, in all it's unlovely nakedness.
Islam is being brought to the west, and we are REJECTING it.
Posted by: treehugger at April 7, 2006 2:23 PM
From 1991 on, with American air cover protecting them...
And British.
They need to know that "From an inch away a goat looks just like a sheep".
And you may be as well hung for a kid as for a lamb.
at April 7, 2006 2:26 PM
It was easier to spread radicalism and beliefs hundreds of years ago, before people could talk with someone else on the other side of the world in less than a second.
Posted by: Trodat at April 7, 2006 2:39 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two suicide attackers wearing women's cloaks blew themselves up Friday in a Shiite mosque in northern Baghdad, killing at least 46 people and wounding scores, police said. It was the second major attack against Shiite targets in as many days....
This is sad. Probably most of the people praying in the Mosque were ordinary folks and since the two bums were in burkas they were probably in an area with women and kids. What justice is served in this? None.
Posted by: Frank
at April 7, 2006 3:00 PM
Hugh said
He held the Kurds and the Shi'a within his grip through mass murder and mass intimidation. Was that something that should have been honored, and Saddam Hussein left alone?
That is debatable, but the U.S. people were never allowed to have that debate. Instead we were told that the reason for Iraq was imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and specifically Al Qaeda. I would suggest that Saddam was a mass murdering thug, but that there are many mass murdering thugs in the world, and there were (and are) other regimes in the world that present a larger threat to the security of the U.S. than Iraq did. I'm talking about Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. He murdered Iraqi Kurds and Shi'a. Seeing their response in the aftermath of the war, was it worth going to war to save them? To repeat, that is debatable.
No doubt all kinds of people, wishing to use whatever they can against the Administration, will insist that "we can't leave."
That is an extraordinary way of thinking of it. In fact, those of us advocating pulling out of Iraq are doing the Administration a favor! If we allow them (the Administration) to continue wallowing in the results of the current plan, things can only get worse over time. Iraq will slide further and further into civil war, regardless of how many confident statements Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice make to the contrary. In an extraordinary leap, you have pointed out that the Bush Administration, and their legacy, can only be improved by listening to those "critics" who they are currently demonizing. The "critics" could actually be the Administration's saviours, if they would just listen.
You seem to be suggesting that Democrats would argue for staying in Iraq (and therefore ostensibly staying "loyal" to the Administration) because they know that in the end that will hurt the Administration, while Republicans would argue for withdrawal (and go against the wishes of the Administration). That would be treasonous of the Democrats, if true. I haven't seen any evidence of that; the opposite so far seems true. At any rate, I put loyalty to country far above party loyalty, and my reasons for withdrawal (greatly influenced by your writings) have nothing to do with hurting or helping the Administration.
Posted by: special_guest at April 7, 2006 3:38 PM
Naseem;
Your heart is in the right place but your ideology is twisted. You're so blinded by the idol god Allah and the teachings of his pedeophile, phalse prophet, child molestin' Mohammad, that you are rejecting the truth. Islam KILLS!!! Islam is DEATH!!! This is what you fail to see. And the thing that gets me is that you see the same thing that the whole, wide world sees and you still try to defend Islam!!! This is INSANITY!!! And I know that you're not a stupid person. You're a kind hearted person, but you're not free until you face the reality about Islam and find your path away from Allah. Towards the One True God, and the Ancient of Days.
I'll be praying for you.
No Jesus, No peace!
Know Jesus, Know Peace!
at April 7, 2006 3:51 PM
Where is the outrage in the Muslim street on these deaths? They vandalize and attack over some cartoons, but when Muslims kill Muslims..well that is ...what...ok?
Posted by: Abby at April 7, 2006 4:28 PM
79 SHIA DEAD, OVER 160 SHIA HURT.
This will not end until the Shia totally destroy the Sunni's ability to wage terror.
The US needs to step back and allow this civil war to wage and save our soldiers from further deaths trying to stop a civil war that is inevitable.
Posted by: Texican at April 7, 2006 5:09 PM
For Eisenhund:
From Pelayo
Thses are the two posts that caused me to put two and two together - I got five. Sorry for the bad assumption
"When any Islamist says that we American Infidel Dogs do not understand Islam because we do not understand Arabic, it is our duty to reply and ask how the Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, and other non-Arabs learn the Koran. We must not let them use this slimy tactic. I was once confronted by a devout Muslim who insisted that I knew nothing about Islam because I had not read the entire Koran. Later, after my slow brain caught up with me, I remembered this as a reply, alas too late: "One does not have eat every apple in the barrel to find out that it is full of rotten apples.""
"The most famous or infamous ad hominem attack is to add the suffix “phobe” to any word de jour. I have never been called an Islamaphobe to my face, but if it ever happens I hope that I have the presence of mind to reply that my concern over Islam is not a phobia but genuine concern molded by the events of the last five years and the support that violent jihad has from almost every prominent Islamic spokesman in the Muslim world. I do not have a phobia about poisonous snakes, but I do not want them in my house."
Posted by: Pelayo at April 5, 2006 08:44 PM
-allen
Would this be the same 'Paolo' that yohanbiimu and I engaged in http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010908.php? The one who tried to further his arguments by addressing me as 'Cagnaccio' (mad dog)? He is the resident ad hominem hypocrite. Best to just acknowledge his 'greatness' and move on. He's far above us unenlightened rubes, especially those of us of the American persuasion, what with our death penalty and all.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 5, 2006 09:08 PM
at April 7, 2006 6:49 PM
The strife between the Shia and Sunnies in Iraq is age old ethnic rivary for power and access to resources. To try to "explain" it through Islam is about as germine as trying to understand the IRA by nitpicking biblical verses and Catholic doctrines.
Even more absurd is the contention often made in this site that the war cry against the U.S and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan is the result of "jihadist" ideology.
If your country is under occupation by an overwhelming foreign power would you not fight back with any means availiable??(and how is it "terrorism" to attack military personels?)
True, some pacifists, like the Tibetans may "choose" the path of peaceful resistance,--I don't know if it is truly by choice or simply by necessity, but let's assume it is for argument's sake,--but certainly this is not the norm and you cannot expect most people to react in the Tibetan way.
Least of all Americans.
Judging from the blood thirsty rhetorics against percieved "Muslim threat" and the blatant advocation of ethnic cleasning and worse measures against American muslims by many here(by "ballot or bullet" as one poster puts it) I sure don't expect any peaceful response from Americans if some Islamic power invades your country, sets up military bases all over the U.S and installs a puppet President in the White house. In that unlikely event some Xians may justify their violent resistance by quotiong the Old Testament but I doubt that the biblical verses are the CAUSES why they pick up their guns.
I agree that Islam as practiced in many places is a barbaric belief system which badly in need of reform. We should not shrink from confronting it.
But religions cannot be easily disentangled from culture, history and politics.
It is very poor argument to insist that Quranic verses are the single explantion of all evils of the "Islamic" world. As far as research methodology goes one can't even pass a first year history course with this kind of approach. It is not that there is a "liberal conspiracy" in the universities against malcontents like Huge. It is just that his stuffs are woefully substandard even with his excessive verbosity.
You're merely projecting your own single minded obsession with religion onto the Muslims,--a large population with varying degrees of religiosity and diverse ways of interpreting the Quran. Many questionable "Islamic" practices are as much cultral as they are religious(honour killings,female "circumcision" e.g)
There are occassional valid points made in this site, but you lose your credibility by your over the top rhetorics and simplistic, bumber sticker approach to complex issues.
Your frequent reliances on sources like the notorious rightwing mag "frontpage" and partisians like Daneil Pipe, who self servingly "defines" a "moderate" Muslim to be someone who takes the Israeli side in the Palestinian-Isreali conflict certainly makes it clear that you're smuggling a political agenda under the guise of criticising Islamic beliefs,--in the same way Islamists use religion as a cover for politics.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 7:45 PM
It is all well and good to advocate civil war in Iraq, and we should be out by now, regardless. 'Nation-building' was never the agenda, (shouldn't be)
But 2 things have to be taken care of beforehand:
1.The propaganda-war has to be fought vigorously, and the MSM has to get behind it. The perversion of the cult of Islam must be exposed and brought out into the open. Ridicule is the way and since oil is not a weapon, (Arabs will have to continue selling it to us) They cannot exist without our supplies, we can cut the supplies to them, so that shouldn't be the problem.
2. Immigration and asylum laws to the west must be changed in favor of a complete stop to Mohammedans, regardless. A civil war in Iraq, with our current laws in place, would entitle the Sistani's and the Muqtadas al Sadres and every other Zarquawi to ask for asylum with a good chance of success.
The French have supported Khomeini and you see what it got them. The Brit's got heeps more of the same slime and havn't deported one yet. This has to change.
But how?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 7, 2006 7:56 PM
Evil exists in our world. Vile and evil things are done by vile and evil persons.
muslims embrace, love and honor the cult of islam for the cult of islam allows each male mo to unleash the vilest filth of the male ego to debase subjugate and terrorize women and to demean and murder non-believers without repercussions or penalties from the vile and evil cult of islam.
If a mo sees a child, teenager or woman that he wants to sodomize and rape, he has no restrictions placed upon him by the cult of islam not to sodomize and rape them. For he is innocent for they seduced him to do it.
The cult of islam was formed by the evil and vile black souled mohammed and nothing can come out of this vile and evil cult except vile and evil acts and those that follow the cult of islam become vile and evil and black souled for no righteous can come from evil.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at April 7, 2006 8:09 PM
"How in allah's SWT name are we to bring Islam to the West if this horror & stupidity goes on. ."
Naseem
I wonder why do the West need "Islam" in the first place. At least phenomenologically, all countries which embrace Islam are in bad shape not only economically and technologically, but also culturally centries behind.
You may say none of these countries practise "true Islam", but I have an inkling of what "true Islam" is like by reading br. Mohedeen. Not a pretty sight.
The West needs Islam as much as I need a tape worm.
It is your freedom to believe in little green men from Mass or some fantasic stories invented by some 7th centry desert warlord to rule his empire. But please spare us.
Free thinking people use their brains to navigate through life, not by looking to some holy book which alledgedly contains all the answers.
Speaking of which, it is amusing to Muslims arguing among themselves til their faces get blue about whether such and such is advocated by the Quran(say persecuting homosexuals.In most cases both sides have already made up their minds, but somehow they just can't assert their views without somehow using the Quran to support them, no matter how obviously they twist the verses.
In the same way I see gay Xians trying to justify their lifestyles by arguing that "God" is not really against homosexuality. It is a feat of verbal and logical gymnastic to behold.Why not just admit the bible is a homophobic, sexist piece of literature from another time and walk away from it instead of trying to square the circle? If in your heart of heart you believe it is ok to be gay you why do you need to justify it? I confess I don't understand the mindset of religious people.
"No Jesus, No peace!
Know Jesus, Know Peace" Hondo
I say holy smoke. We don't need Allah, nor do we need Jesus. Religion is like sex, you do it in your own privacy, amen.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 8:19 PM
I say holy smoke. We don't need Allah, nor do we need Jesus. Religion is like sex, you do it in your own privacy, amen.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 08:19 PM
----------------
Disgusto, without Jesus America would not exist nor be free.
I will pray for you.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at April 7, 2006 8:25 PM
"without Jesus America would not exist nor be free.."
The Texican.
Ask the Native Americans and the black slaves how Jesus brought them freedom. Or the Native Canadian children who were forcibly taken away from their parents and placed in residential school,where they were physically and sexually abused by the Catholic brothers in between bible reading sessions.Or the South American Natives who were converted to the Jesus Cult at gun point.
"I will pray for you.."
Thanks but no thanks. Keep your prayers to yourself.
To continue with my sex analogy, saying "I'll pray for you" to an unbeliever without him/her asking is like waving your di%% in his/her face.
You should apologize.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 8:38 PM
At least Saddam was secular. Now it looks like Iraq will become yet another theocracy. Nice job U.S.A.
But this is actually consistent with U.S record in the ME. The monster of Islamofacism has been fed by the U.S for the sake of the cold war. OBL is a blow back.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 8:49 PM
"for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"
Muhammad was poisoned by the wife of the tribal chief he had killed. The hadiths recorded the terrible suffering he had for two years, and finally he died of it.
The second Caliph Umar was assassinated by a Persian.
The third Caliph Uthman was assassinated by a Muslim.
The fourth Caliph Ali was assassinated by Muslims.
Muhammad's grandson Hasan was allegedly poisoned.
Muhammad's grandson Hussein was brutally killed by Muslims.
Posted by: yaqub at April 7, 2006 9:24 PM
Proving once again that islam is the perfect tool for human turmoil.
This so called "religion of peace" is the carefully laid infrastructure of Satan.
I completely agree.
Posted by: Denver at April 7, 2006 9:58 PM
Religion is like sex, you do it in your own privacy, amen.
... By yourself?
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 7, 2006 10:10 PM
-Pelayo
No harm done. I figured it was something like that. I don't recall ever seeing you attack anyone in your posts, and in fact I usually agree with you.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 7, 2006 10:17 PM
"Religion is like sex, you do it in your own privacy, amen.
... By yourself?"
Supposedly with your "god". Though for us non believers it is indeed a bit like spiritual masturbation.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 10:21 PM
yaqub-
I think I detect a pattern there.
(One that is being blithely ignored and supressed by the majority of the Media, the political classes, globally-worried business leaders and mainstream non-Muslim religious figures -who all trip all over one another to praise this "noble" 'religion', AKA proto-mafia family.)
disgusto-
Reagan thought that the Soviets were more dangerous than Islam because they were 'godless', so he helped the 'mu-jihad-een' fight the Russians, tragically/naively giving them access too our hi-tech arms and too much insight into our own espionage and intelligence methods in 1980's Afghanistan. Actuallly, this 'godlessness' made the Soviets far more tractable (amenable to things like the M.A.D. doctrine, etc.) , since, without THIS world's survival, they would have no place to exercise their grasping tyranny. They were scholastically-cunning pragmatists, realpolitik cynics and brutal s.o.b.'s, but they could also be counted on to be men who primarily wanted to survive.
Bush, the First carried on this superficial analysis and confusion of enemies, adding his own glib gloss to the mix, by failing to oust Saddam in 1991 after Hussein's army was defeated in that quick war. And then allowed Saddam to use his still-existent military to mobilize and terrorize his own people, in both the north and south, with helicopter gunships and ground troops.
"Fixed wing aircraft" were forbidden to be deployed by the coalition's cease-fire agreement, but that patently-absurd "resistriction" meant nothing to the thousands of "Marsh Arabs" and Kurds who died in the ensuing savage backlash by the Iraqi Stalin wannabe.
Finally, a pair of 'safe zones' were established out of the growing embarassment with this 'permitted slaughter', as the world's disgust grew with the U.S.-sanctioned murderous chaos.
Bill Clinton's guilt in building-up this 'blowback' was of the ostrich variety. He allowed the jihadist pustule to grow, and kill more and more of our people, while he snapped thongs and lied with all the panache of W.C. Fields.
Bush the Second's failure is of the "Books, I don't need to read no stinking books!" version.
We need statemen; -we get panderers to plutocrats and prattlers of platitudes.
Statesmen (those who know more history than fits on a cereal box blurb) appear to have become as extinct as trilobites.
The religious urge, the Awe Instinct, raises us above mere fatalistic knuckle-dragging, but is often used as a 'spiritual' cudgel by the dogmatic literalists.
In contrast, the Tao (and other non-personality-based 'spiritual' insights) can't be twisted into a noose the way too many 'figural' faiths may. Creeds all-too-easily manipulated by machiavellians for their own disguised grab at worldly-power, backed up by the nimbus of the Eternal Policeman.
Our government, military and 'intelligence' services have been so simple-minded and un-skeptical in the last quarter of the 20th century that it is amazing we survived their follies as well as we have.
It seems that it will take a great calamity to sweep these mental midgets out of power and clear the political stage for a type of leadership more capable of cultural enlightened self-interest, at the very least. And willing to fight for our civilization's survival with every potential weapon we possess.
And P.C. be damned.
Sadly, I don't even detect their shadow yet.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 7, 2006 10:23 PM
You're rambling there, disgusto. One hardly knows where to begin. Let's see if we can untangle what your complaints are:
1. Tu quoque arguments.
Two crucial differences: First, the violent passages of the Old Testament are accepted by the mainstream as historical passages, not as justification to kill people one doesn't like. In the West, we actually have a moderate majority, and a minority of extremists.
Why? That's my second point. The transgressions you named are all contrary to the teachings of the "Jesus Cult" as you called it, while the exhortations to violence, deceit, and double standards come from Islam's own scripture and the sayings of its prophet.
2. You think Jihad Watch has a Christian/political agenda. Read the FAQ under the heading "Robert Spencer" at the top of the page, and find the item "Q: I've read that you are secretly a Catholic and have a religious agenda," to which the reply is, in part:
There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later.
At this point the people most active, in various ways, in the work of Jihad Watch are a Catholic, a Jew, and an atheist. If we weren't so busy trying to awaken the Western world to the threat of violent jihad, we could walk into a bar and...(fill in your own punchline).
3. You think the problems of jihad all boil down to simplistic complaints about "occupation," and had there been no State of Israel created in 1948, there'd be no jihad?
Please. Read a bit more around the site; if you're particularly inspired, buy or borrow The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades.
You say we're "merely projecting your own single minded obsession with religion onto the Muslims." It's only the single-minded obsession of the mujahedin, which comes not from a fringe element, but the very core of islam, that makes the jihad a danger in the first place.
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 7, 2006 10:24 PM
Someone check under the bridge. Looks like we have another 'its all Christians' and America's fault' leftist troll.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 7, 2006 10:33 PM
"Two crucial differences: First, the violent passages of the Old Testament are accepted by the mainstream as historical passages, not as justification to kill people one doesn't like. In the West, we actually have a moderate majority, and a minority of extremists. "
Where did I say otherwise? (But the bible thumpers I find here are definitely not the "moderates" that you talk about)
Why do you think there is a moderate majority among Xians? I think this is exactly because the last couple of centries of history has succeeded in bringing about a secular western world where religions are FORCED to retreat to the private sphere.
Hence my point. No Allah in my face and no Jesus either.
"The transgressions you named are all contrary to the teachings of the "Jesus Cult" as you called it, while the exhortations to violence, deceit, and double standards come from Islam's own scripture and the sayings of its prophet"
According to whom? Obviously the medieval Church had armies of theologens and scholars to prove that it is YOU who got Jesus' message wrong and someone like you should be burnt at the stake, according to what they said God said.
Xianity is more than just the bible and Jesus(some actually argued Paul invented the whole thing)
In the same way Islam is more than just the Quran and the haddiths.
I think Islam was invented by some desert warlord as a way to control his people. But overtime it interacts with culture and history and becomes vastly more complex. I don't like Islam but I think your(and Spencer's) way of cutting up Quranic verses is too simplistic and unproductive.
What to you have to gain by proving that "Islam" is unformable? Your message to the moderates is basically that they should all become "Jihadists"if they want to be "true" Muslims? Smart move.
The funny thing about religion is that you can twist and spin it in many ways you want. Even the claim that the Quran is directly dictated to Mo apparantly is not absolute. Irshad Manji argued that it was invented by some Scholars long after Mo's death(I don't know how credible it is, but it shows that there are ways to get out of a literalist interpretation, even for Islam)
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 10:54 PM
""Someone check under the bridge. Looks like we have another 'its all Christians' and America's fault' leftist troll."
Yeh, what an intelligent point.
When did I say it was all the Xian's fault?
America certainly has a hand in creating the mess in the ME. Are you denying history? Even profitsbeard apparantly agrees that the U.S has "blundered",--though he might argue that the choice was optimal given the circumstances, which I disagree.Is he also a "leftist troll".
Go back to your hole.
at April 7, 2006 11:08 PM
(But the bible thumpers I find here are definitely not the "moderates" that you talk about) - disgusto
Are you actually comparing the average Evangelical with someone who would blow himself up on a bus? Apples and oranges, to say the least.
Obviously the medieval Church had armies of theologens and scholars to prove that it is YOU who got Jesus' message wrong and someone like you should be burnt at the stake, according to what they said God said.
Things are getting tangled again. You're arguing using a past transgression of the Church, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who, by the way, founded the religion-- not the medieval clerics. Islam, on the other hand, as I mentioned before, has those practices enshrined in the letter of its law, not contrary to it.
I think Islam was invented by some desert warlord as a way to control his people. But overtime it interacts with culture and history and becomes vastly more complex. I don't like Islam but I think your (and Spencer's) way of cutting up Quranic verses is too simplistic and unproductive.
Are you here to defend Islam, or discard it with the rest of organized religion? In one sentence, you bring up Irshad Manji as a potential savior of Islam, but why do you care about its reformability if you believe it's just a distracting human invention anyway?
As for Manji, This site has been there, done that. Enjoy:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006014.php
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 7, 2006 11:14 PM
You should apologize.
Posted by: disgusto at April 7, 2006 08:38 PM
=============
This Christian will fight for your right to believe as you wish, but do not attack my right to be a Christian and tell be to be silent for that will only happen once I am in Heaven. I have not harmed you and hopefully other Christians have not harmed you.
I can guarantee that if the mo’s win you will either convert, be a slave or be executed.
So Disgusto, when you stand in front of God, you can then apologize for the follies of your ways.
I have now prayed for you twice, may God help you.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at April 7, 2006 11:40 PM
"3. You think the problems of jihad all boil down to simplistic complaints about "occupation," and had there been no State of Israel created in 1948, there'd be no jihad? "
Why not stop the occupation and see if I am wrong?
I would never claim that a complex situation like the ME can be boiled down to a single cause. There are many factors that feed on each other.
But the fact remains that the demise of Arab nationalism(represented by people such as Naser) has a lot to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The beast is further fed by the U.S as a force against secular nationalism, especially the leftist variety.
Israel is only a lightning rod for the things it symbolizes, rightly or wrongly. But resentment against Western colonization and encroachment runs deeper than that.
Just answer my question.
How do you think hot blooded, non "jihadist" Americans would react if the shoe is on the other foot? That some Islamic superpower has been setting up military basis through out the united states, meddling in U.S domestic and foreign policies and peroidically sponsors coups to overthrow U.S presidents and installs its puppets.Plus, using the U.S as an arena to fight bloody proxy wars with say, Mexico?
Like I said. Huge and Robert wouldn't even pass a first year history course with their simple minded, bumber sticker theory of the ME.
"Please. Read a bit more around the site; if you're particularly inspired, buy or borrow The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades."
Yeh, Spencer claims that the crusade was a defensive move. Then let me ask you who exterminated the Byzantines?
Also, don't forget not all crusades were waged against the Muslims, there were quite a few against Xian heretics and the Church didn't quite say live and let live to Xian 'apostate" and "heretics".
Just in case you miss my point.
I am not saying the Muslims were nice guys.
What I am saying is they were not UNIQUELY brutal given the nature of warfare at the time.
The crusaders themselves were certainly no example of civilized behaviour.
What is dishonest about Spencer is that he singles out the Muslims as if only they were guilty of barbarism and it was all because of Islam and nothing else(I am not saying the Xian's are better or worse. I need to say this again because many on this site seem to have difficulty getting out of this dualistic thinking. The Chinese, say, who were neither Xian nor Muslim, likewise were experts in barbaric warfare. That was what wars were like then) The horrendous deeds documented by Spencer, no doubt with great delight, was not in anyway uniquely "Islam".
at April 7, 2006 11:45 PM
"Yeh(sic), what an intelligent point."
-disgusto at April 7, 2006 11:08 PM
Are you really so arrogant that you think we haven't seen your smug leftist crap before? Not denying that I was talking about you, but its funny that you assumed so. Your type plays the blame America and Christianity game every chance you get. You wanna think Christians are to blame for everything (and its spelled "Christian" not "Xian" you stupid jackass, knock off the attempts at being cute)? How about the eighty million or so murdered by the Communists, athiests like you?
"Go back to your hole."
Thanks, but I spent thirteen years in holes with a rifle in my nation's army you little punk. What have you done? Run your mouth, flex your internet muscles. God or whoever help us if we ever have to rely on whiny little putzes like you. Get on your high horse and take a ride outta town, boy. You're neither needed nor wanted here.
BTW-profitsbeard doesn't play the tu quoque b.s. nor he act as if one must be perfect to criticize others' bad acts. If you're going to mention him, read his posts and learn something.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 7, 2006 11:53 PM
Degusto, You're neither needed nor wanted here.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 7, 2006 11:53 PM
=============
In duplicate.
The Texican.
Posted by: Texican at April 7, 2006 11:56 PM
How do you think hot blooded, non "jihadist" Americans would react if the shoe is on the other foot? That some Islamic superpower has been setting up military basis through out the united states, meddling in U.S domestic and foreign policies and peroidically sponsors coups to overthrow U.S presidents and installs its puppets.Plus, using the U.S as an arena to fight bloody proxy wars with say, Mexico?
And, we've come full-circle, back to attempts at tu quoque, between the Byzantine business, and the question above.
Aside from the "Islamic" specification, much of the scenario you describe already happened in the Cold War. We fought back, economically, ideologically, and militarily, and drove the USSR into the ground.
So, that's "how Americans would react." But that's beside the point. What's at issue here is the ideology driving the jihad. Where in the US Constitution is it mandated that we "dominate and not be dominated?" We don't have that, but Islam does. It's raison d'etre is to expand, while America's is the right of its citizens to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Apples and oranges again.
Just in case you miss my point.
I am not saying the Muslims were nice guys.
What I am saying is they were not UNIQUELY brutal given the nature of warfare at the time.
"At the time." What time? I thought we were talking about the present, where jihad is being waged against us, after the model of Muhammad, who, in spite of when and where he lived, is upheld by the mujahedin as the model for all time.
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 8, 2006 12:08 AM
The well-named Disgusto is not only a miserable troll, but a historical illiterate. It is yet another indictment of the school system that someone as ignorant as him should presume to soliloquize about history. I hope he realizes that he is convincing absolutely nobody here and go back to MoveOn.org or the Trotskites or wherever it is that he can find friends.
I was thinking, yet more suicide bombers disguised as women. Sistani will have to issue a fatwa justifying skin-tight dresses and Catherine's short skirts, merely out of self-preservation.
Posted by: Paolo at April 8, 2006 12:43 AM
I was thinking, yet more suicide bombers disguised as women. Sistani will have to issue a fatwa justifying skin-tight dresses and Catherine's short skirts, merely out of self-preservation.
Posted by: Paolo at April 8, 2006 12:43 AM
==============
Only if they shave their legs and armpits.
Posted by: Texican at April 8, 2006 12:47 AM
Mohammedans in spandex cycling shorts. As if suicide bombers, exploding cars, and halal-knife wielding sociopaths weren't bad enough. Can't imagine too many of them spend much time doing pilates, what with all the praying and jihading their magic mumbo-jumbo book calls for.
Posted by: Eisenhund at April 8, 2006 1:37 AM
We're doomed
Posted by: stranger at April 8, 2006 7:41 AM
Nope stranger, you've forgotten God 'tis all.
Posted by: Mike_W at April 8, 2006 8:30 AM
Last time I checked the numbers of casualties was up to 79.
Would have been another 'normal' day for the RoP.
'Disgusto' above seems to have chosen a very appropriate moniker.
Paolo figured him out:
"...The well-named Disgusto is not only a miserable troll, but a historical illiterate..."
Good on you, Paolo!
'Disgusto' is another one of those wankers who makes arguments for arguments sake, trying to bore & frustrate everyone with lack of substance and some flaky religious equivalence crap.
Why don't you put you thinking cap on and come back with some substance?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 8, 2006 1:37 PM
"...Only if they shave their legs and armpits..."
from Texican above.
I believe they do. Before they blow up....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 8, 2006 11:35 PM
Disgusto;
I agree with you about religion. I hate religion. Through the years, religion has been the cause of many a war, crusade, and jihad. The thing about religion is that too many people in the world today associate religion with Jesus and that just isn't true!!! (Shock, surprise!) Truth be told, Jesus hated religion more than you do! When Jesus came into the world, the religious leaders of the day didn't even know that He had arrived. They were looking for someone decked out in spectacular robes and bejewelled armor, riding a "mighty steed" to lead them in battle to conquer the rulling Roman Empire and over throw it. Jesus' coming into the world was less than humble. He came into the world born among pigs, cows, in a barn with a trough for a crib. Jesus was born homeless!
But yet, His ministry shock the religious machine of the day.
Disgusto, religion is man made. Organized by man, run by man. The whole purpose of relgion is not to bring man closer to God the Father, but to seperate man from his money! Plain and simple. Religion tells people what they "think" they want to hear. Even honest men fall victim to the allure of the possiblity of a big weekly financial bonanza. Those in the hierachy of each and every denomination now that what their doing is not benifiting the flock, if you will. But it is benifiting their pockets and coiffers.
When Jesus came on the seen, He preached a totally different message. Plus He took on the religious machine. the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Scribes were the one running the religious machine and they did not appreciate Jesus coming on the seen preaching "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5. Jesus even went so far as to call the religious leaders of the day a "generation of vipers," and asked them, "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Mathew 23:33. As a matter of fact, if you can find it within yourself to do so, read Matthew chapter 23. This entire chapter is Jesus scolding the religious leaders and warning them of the risk they are taking in misleading Father God's people.
Religion, not Jesus is the reason that there are so many non-believers in the world. Todays "Christians" claim to be following Bible doctrine, but even the Bible tells us tha "ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:17a.
Disgusto, bet that you didn't know that you and Jesus had the dislike of religion in common, did you? Here's another fact about Jesus and religion. It was not the Jews that killed Jesus. It was religion! The Pharisees had the same kind of hold on the Hebrews at that time that the imans, mullahs and ayatollahs have on Muslims today. The Scribes took everything that Jesus preached and twisted it against Him. The religious leaders were seen as the "experts" on all religious matters and only the truely religious men could dicipher the "dark mysteries of God's Word!" The people relied on the religious leaders to tell them "what thus saith the Lord." The people were not knowledgible about God's Word. Making them easy to mislead. It was the religious leaders that caused the crowds to go into a frenzy against Jesus and call for His death by crucifixtion! Look at how the religious leaders acted in Afghanistan over Bro. Abdul Rahman's conversion from Islam to Chritianity. They called for his death! How many Muslims actually know their koran? If their like most psuedo-christians, they study what their leaders tell them to, or they don't study at all!
So please Disgusto, don't base Jesus on today's psuedo-christianity. I know that religion has left a bitter taste in your mouth. But don't "throw the baby out with the bath water." Today's psuedo-christians don't even follow the Bible as they claim that they do. Some are just wolves in sheeps clothing. The church run by man is an organization. The true church of Jesus is an organism.
One more point that I agree with you on, your faith is personal. I don't claim religion nor do I claim a denomination. I'm a Bible-believer. I reject the title "christian" mostly because the title has been compromised by unrightous men playing God. And getting "rich" off of Him just like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Scribes did back in Jesus' day. I.m not trying to convert you Disgusto. That's Father God's job. I'm just letting you know the "real" Jesus and telling you about how He was against religion just like you.
My advise to you is to give Jesus a try. Find out about Him for yourself in His Word, the Bible. If you would put aside your dislikes for a few moments and read at least Matthew the 23 chapter, you just may see a little bit of you in Jesus. I mean as far as the dislike for religion.
at April 10, 2006 11:07 AM
Disgusto;
I'm decendent from both black slaves and Indians and I love Jesus!!!
at April 10, 2006 11:47 AM
Disgusto;
One more fact, religion uses government to enforce religious doctrine. That's why slavery flourished in the United States for so long. And if you would check the Bible, the religious leaders tried to use the government to put Jesus to death.
at April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)