And millions of people, including Persians, who languish under oppressive islamist regimes will - what? Die?

Strange press statement though - don't they think the U.S. is always doing evil things?

Posted by: Lili at May 2, 2006 5:19 PM

They don't realize that Israel will wreak havoc on their behinds and they will regret that first missle. Israel doesn't fool around.

Posted by: freewoman at May 2, 2006 5:21 PM

I am no fan of Bush, but if he takes out the Iranian nuclear program, his entire administration might be worth it. Of course, I don't know what the consequences will be, but my bet is they will be much worse for the Iranian tyranny than for anyone else.

My greatest fear in all of this is that Ahmadinejad has a trick up his sleeve. Maybe they managed to purchase a few nukes already and have them placed somewhere to do serious damage when we move against them.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 2, 2006 5:22 PM

Ronin, ever heard of fall-out? Of veeeery long term consequences to the environment and even the genetic health of populations affected? Not just those directly under the bomb but also their neighbours? This isn't as much fun as you seem to think.

Posted by: Lili at May 2, 2006 5:33 PM

Correction: as you and Ahmadinejad seem to think.

Posted by: Lili at May 2, 2006 5:34 PM

I have to say I have more confidence in Israel than the US. If he strikes Israel goodbye Iran so long have a good afterlife.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at May 2, 2006 6:06 PM

wherever America does something evil, the first place that we target will be Israel

Wherever? He means "whenever" with a bit of "wherever" thrown in. Whatever.

Don't you know anything? America is the Great Satan. Evil is what Great Satans do. Wherever, whenever and however. There's bound to be some bit of America doing something evil somewhere.

This is a tall order, and sounds ridiculous. But he means it.

Posted by: Interested at May 2, 2006 6:18 PM

Outright plagiarism of the North Korean playbook: While keeping dialogue going, occasionally make an over-the-top threat, like NK's old chestnut a few years ago about turning Seoul into a "sea of fire."

They've been doing their homework. But it begs the question: Will Ahmadinejad order some high heels, shave his beard, and tease his hair 3 inches high? It sure seems to make Kim Jong Il feel better.

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 2, 2006 6:18 PM

I sometimes wonder if all this crazy talk from Iran about nuclear weapons and Israel isn't an attempt to goad some Israeli in an official position to come out and say "If you nuke us then we'll nuke you!". Israel has never publicly, officially admitted to having nuclear weapons. Then they could make a big fuss about double standards etc. as a smokescreen. Meanwhile they're finishing work on the nukes they plan on sending here in cargo containers...

Posted by: Malta_1565 at May 2, 2006 6:27 PM

Seems to me that if ever a sovereign nation had ample moral and legal justification to take out the leadership of a hostile nation, it is Israel today. They could justifiably take out the entire nest of snakes, including the mullahs, acting in legitimate self-defense. And if the commandos should happen upon osama and his egyptian sidekick in Teheran, so much the better.

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 2, 2006 6:38 PM

I'm reminded of Emo Philips classic joke:

I am against building more nuclear weapons. I think we should get more use out of the ones we already have.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 2, 2006 6:44 PM

And here again is more support for my argument that the best defense against Islamic terrorist states such as the Iranian Republic of Iran is the detonation of electro magnetic impulse weapons over their airspace. That should render these countries incapable of executing the sophisticated attacks they have been plotting to commit against the 'evil' non-Muslim 'aggressor' states and with a mimimum loss of life.

One can only hope the Pentagon will weigh this tactic. It may end up being the only thing that thwarts Iran's ambitions thereby preventing a huge war with Islam against the rest of the world.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 2, 2006 7:33 PM

For once this guy makes sense, why is the US doing evil things? We need to stop feeding the Muslims of the Southeast Asian Tsunami, and the Pakistani earthquake survivors, shame on us, how do you expect Muslim babies to be martyrs if we don't let them starve or freeze to death. Why do you think fellow Muslims don’t donate to such evil causes, shame on us.

Posted by: billybob at May 2, 2006 7:37 PM

I think banging your head on the ground 5 times daily will drive you insane

Posted by: Snapperhead at May 2, 2006 8:39 PM

i alway's wonder do we really understand the enemy.we watched 19 men drive jet's into building's for islam.iran belives the 12th imam is due anytime,but will only come when chaos reins on earth.they belive a war with israel will bring that chaos.please understand the things they say they belive.google hidden imam or 12th imam.understand the enemy.we are on the eve of the worst war the world has seen.

Posted by: campingman1 at May 2, 2006 9:08 PM

I was thinking if I could come up with a good thing that Islam did, and I started listening to songs from the "Golden Age of Islam", and got to one written by Richard the Lionheart, and realised something.

Islam has contributed much more then anyone here thinks, and let me explain.

Islam has been trying to destroy non Islamic Civilizations in General, and The West in particular since the 7th century, and so it has made us be a lot more innovative, their invasions gave us real life villains to record and remember in literary traditions remember what is the Song of Roland without the Saracen Invasion and the French Response? The romantic tales of Richard the Lionheart again come from the fact that the West needed a defender against Islam, and got him, Voltaire notorious enemy of religion and defender of free speech also wrote about the defence against Islam in his plays despite his natural hate for Crusaders. Islam also by default made us great soldiers because we needed to protect ourselves, it forced us to redevelop sciences in order to get ahead, it made our countries very liberal by showing what happens when a society is so far right that their equivalent of a liberal is a fascist that is willing to only moniter your actions when you are awake, Islam put up the challenged we had to overcome.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at May 2, 2006 10:19 PM

In related news here is some anti-dhimmitude from Israel, acknowledgement of a permanent Jihad against it

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/711993.html

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at May 2, 2006 10:32 PM

thethinker using Nuclear Weapons against Islam would turn Greek Cyprus, other Greek Islands, Israel, Indians, and the Maronites into a heap of ashes.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at May 2, 2006 10:57 PM

The US must buy oil in the world’s market, and from OPEC, but the US surely takes a fair share of punishment from Iran.

The Iran hostage crises was 444 days, (1979 to 1981), and this surely punished the US.
Iran was found responsible for 1983 Marine barracks bombing, Iranian jihad murdered 241 US servicemen, and this surely punished the US.
Iran, armed and ready with nuclear weapons, they will soon punish the US, and Iran will become a significant threat to the world.
The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, and the petroeuro, will rapidly discredit the US dollar, and the Euro will replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. This will significantly deflate the value of the US dollar, and US standing in the world. At this time, it costs almost 1.30 US dollar to buy one Euro, and may soon cost more like 5.30 US dollar to buy one Euro. Iran will surely punish the US economy.

But one still gets the impression, that the average Iran citizen wishes for a regime change in Iran, because average Iranians do not benefit from the corrupt and repressive Islamic regime. They respect the US constitution far more then the totalitarian backward religious regime they must live under in Iran.

The US is a friend of the Iranian people, the Iranian people must let the US know their plans for the future, how the US may help bring about regime change in Iran. The US is thier best hope. It is quite clear, most other countries would rather embrace Iran’s current regime, then help deliver the liberation of the Iranian people. Iran must come online. Iran must come out from down under. Iran must become another one of the world’s free, secular, and democratic nations.

The enemy of the Iranian people is also not Israel; the enemy of the Iranian people is the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the current regime of Iran. Anti-Semitism is Iranian regime propaganda, used to keep the Iranian people distracted, and to keep their mind off the childlike Iranian Islamic Sharia Law regime.

Posted by: SFOD at May 2, 2006 11:23 PM

The Euro is going to supplant the US dollar? The currency of a Europe in fast decline is not going to even supplant the ruble or the peso. Europe is stagnating with socialism, racial upheaval, and social unrest that is about to explode. And the European constitution is going nowhere. The Euro could very well be history.

Posted by: thethinker at May 2, 2006 11:28 PM

We may be conducting a little pre-war black-ops.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 2, 2006 11:58 PM

The problem is that we in the civilised West know what nuclear weapons are capable of. We can't use them - yet. We have to put up with the insults for the time being, and the insults to our intelligence, because if we responded to every stupid statement from a moslem our world would be a smoking, charred cinder. I don't want, nor do the millions we so obviously represent, to reduce our world to rubble.

I don't understand the anti-USA attitudes. I don't think that I ever could. My world, the world of rational British thought, acknowledges the great military debt that this country owes to the USA. I cannot find it in my heart, despite American perfidity in the matter of Empire, to condemn so close an ally; and, what is more, an ally which so closely shares our own values of freedom, liberty, democracy and the rule of law. Times change and although we in the UK know that the USA was instrumental in bringing our great country low this is now and that was then. We have had our arguments and now we must move on and confront our common enemy in the same way that, jointly, we have done in the past.

As British forces, small and insignificant as they are, prepare to relieve American forces in difficult parts of Afghanistan, I, for one, feel nothing but pride that, once again, the two great freedom-loving nations on this planet are standing side by side. Whatever our politicians may say, I invite all here to honour our service men, and women, as they, both from the USA and the UK, confront the enemy and attempt, in the finest traditions of our civilisation, to pacify and reason with him, silly though such attempts be.

Doomed to failure as these efforts may be, they still demonstrate our vast moral superiority compared to the islamic enemy. We may not, as peoples, have, as yet, comprehended the full extent of the jihad being waged against us (indeed, this site makes it quite plain that an enormous number of Americans wish that Europe would wake up and see the threat which confronts them) but I remain confident, perhaps stupidly, that the peoples of both the USA and the UK, and perhaps Europe, will awake, timeously, and expel the invader and confront him on his own territory.

However, it cannot be by nuclear means - even if the enemy were to use nuclear weapons against us. There can be no winners in such an exchange. We cannot poison the planet for our own people. It is incumbent upon us, regretably, to act, as we have always acted, as the mature responsible adult, even in the face of extreme childish, islamic provocation. We must not bring about nuclear winter, nuclear armagedon, or nuclear destruction of our own peoples.

The weapons which we possess are so powerful,and of such destructive capabilities, that they must always remain a court of last resort - even then I would have to appeal to our common humanity; should we destroy all life on this planet in order to simply make our point. Freedom is of a value moot if all humans are dead and the planet sterilised of all life!

It is terrible to contemplate what this war means. It means, as far as I can see, that our brave service people will, probably for decades, continue to be slaughtered by the vile, stupid, un-educated, arrogant, islamic hordes. We have to prepare our peoples for a long, and probably thankless, struggle against the forces of evil which seek to destroy us, our culture and our democratic, liberal, secular way of life. This struggle will, eventually, sap our joie de vivre, cause us to question our motives, undermine our democracy and may even lead us to question the very beliefs we are fighting for, but will never, never, for me and mine, stop us from believing that the sacrifice is worth making.

A world without liberty! A world without dissent! A world without questioning! A world under the dead, life denying fist of islam! To live life in thrall to an intellectually dead death cult where change is impossible! I think not. I do not deny God, nor, given the multiple examples of His grace that my life, so far, contains, could I ever.

My personal spirituality, however, is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not islam has anything of value to offer to the human experience. As far as I can see it does not. It is a death cult, undisputed by those who post here, and valueless in its approach to human life. It has not advanced the cause of humanity, nor its spirituality, nor its scientific enquiry, nor its ability to cope with the challenges that now face us a species, one whit - not one tit or jottle. Islam is worthy of only one thing - its own destruction. However, we cannot use the means that would assure the destruction of islam without destroying ourselves also. That is our problem, and also our curse.

If you think I wax too eloquent then please forgive me. I am on holiday in la belle France and I probably drank too much wine tonight.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 2, 2006 11:59 PM

did any of you post a message that was deleted?
No? How come??? You just need to disagree with them, they don't need a reason for their censorshit. Welcome to JihadWatch's new police state.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 12:03 AM

"thethinker" posts:
"The B61 nuclear weapon. Our answer to rape, murder, plunder, torture, deceit, jihad..."

Cripes man, you're giddy with nuke frenzy. Calm down and go rent "Beneath the Planet of the Apes." If that doesn't work, research Plasma or anti-matter Weapons. Nice little option to fallout. A nanogram of anti- matter can render a city to something approximating chunky peanut butter, and no non-proliferation hooey.

Posted by: Thumper at May 3, 2006 12:07 AM

Dear Thumper,

Anti-matter is a theory as yet unproved. It should be, I grant you, but there is no evidence for the existence of the exotic - as yet. Science is absolute but ever changing!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 12:13 AM

Anti-matter is not theoretical. It has been created in labs. In fact, CERN first created it in 1995.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 12:16 AM

Dear thethinker,

I take your point. However, I am not afraid of their weapons but of the power of ours. A very small reactor at Chernobyl poisoned so much of the grazing land of my country when it exploded that I dread to imagine what even one simple warhead or ours could do.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 12:17 AM

Dominic, nuclear fuel is not the same as nuclear fallout from an explosion. Chernobyl contaminated that part of Kiev for 10,000 years. But the radiation of the bomb that leveled Hiroshima was gone in weeks. Don't be afraid.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 12:21 AM

Dear thethinker.

Cern deny, actually, that the created particles were anti-matter. The 1995 experiments probably produced the reverse polarity Higgs Boson. Anti-matter has never been successfully produced at the bottom of this particular gravity well but I will allow that it it is still theoretically possible, indeed, probable, and, theoretically, necessary.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 12:25 AM

thumper, I fully agree with your opinion of "thinker". I don't believe he or she is human at all, sounds rather like something the dustbin collectors refused to accept. Of course he or she feels neglected now.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 12:26 AM

Some 'experts' claim that the Iranians, having for many years experienced the horrors of their own theocratic government, are thoroughly cured of the desire for political forms of Islam, and that the decay of the regime from within is now proceeding inexorably. Thus Edward Luttwak in a recent article at Commentary says that before bombing Iran's nuclear processing sites, we should wait a bit longer to give the regime a chance to collapse. Luttwak claims we still have some time before Iran can complete the complicated process required to create a nuke. Luttwak describes that process vividly in the article:

The fissile U-235 isotope of uranium that is needed for bombs is only 1.26-percent lighter than the mass of U-238 that comprises 99.3 percent of natural uranium. To extract it, only very fast centrifuges are of any use, turning at the rate of at least 1,500 revolutions per second, a hundred times as fast as a domestic washing machine.

The spin cycle at the end of the washing process is 15 revolutions per second? Faster than I thought. But back to Luttwak:

Things that turn [1500 revolutions per second] easily break apart, and the detailed design is also far from simple: to reduce friction that would otherwise generate enough heat to melt the whole thing, the electrically powered rotor must spin in a vacuum, with a magnetic bearing. [Similar to the principle behind mag-lev trains?] The Japanese, who are generally believed to be somewhat more advanced than the Iranians in such matters, encountered considerable difficulties with their centrifuge plant.

Nor could Khan possibly sell enough centrifuges to Iran: to separate U-235 for a bomb in any reasonable amount of time, many centrifuges must be set to work at once. With the design now in Iran’s possession, it would take at least 1,000 centrifuges working around the clock for at least a year to produce enough U-235 for a single cannon-type uranium bomb. Those 1,000 centrifuges must first be manufactured and then connected by piping into so-called “cascades”—and they must not break down, as poorly made centrifuges certainly will. (Of the 164 centrifuges that Iran already had in motion when the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] shut down the cascade in November 2003, fully a third crashed when the electricity was turned off.) Nor is it easy to keep the cascade running correctly: because uranium hexafluoride becomes highly corrosive in contact with water vapor, it can easily perforate imperfect tubes—and any leaks will promptly damage more of the plant.

But Michael Ledeen thinks it a no-brainer that the Iranians already have the Bomb, because they have been working on it for 15 years and have had a lot of outside help. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 12:41 AM

Dear thethinker,

Not so. The contamination levels at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are extremely high. In both cities there are civil ordinances against any further disruption of the rubble layers. There is well attested evidence that the heavy trans-uranic fallout from even such small bombs as we quite justifiably dropped, is still having an effect and will do so for many thousands of years. The incidence of cancers is many hundreds of times greater, for example, than elsewhere.

However, that is not my point. Fallout, from any nuclear attack (or accident), spreads world-wide. Enormous areas of my country (UK) are still heavily contaminated by the accident (?) at Chernobyl - and that was several thousands of miles away. Our Ministry of Agriculture is still having to cope with that and has said, within the last three months, that it anticipates having to cope with the Chernobyl fallout for at least fifty thousand years.

Can you imagine what a few, relatively small bombs, might do to us. It's all very well for the USA, insulated by thousands of miles of ocean, to advocate nuclear solutions, but we would have to live with the consequences. No thanks.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 12:44 AM

I don't know what's wrong with you, thinker, and as I'm not a psychologist, I won't be able to help you anyway, but you're the lunatic here, not me.
I'm not a troll, I just found it interesting that the chaos at that school in berlin was a topic here and because it's the same at ours, I posted there and browsed through the other topics as well.
JihadWatch uses censorship, so don't blame me for mentioning it. But the users should know, I guess.
And I wouldn't want to blow you up. I don't wish anything bad on you, although you wished the most horrible things on me in the other forum. But if I tried to stoop to your level, I'm afraid I'd break my neck.
(No reason for you to comment on the last line, I know you'd love that.)

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 12:46 AM

Luttwak also claims that we could destroy Iran's nuclear program with a single night of bombing, and without using nukes to do it:

The fact is that the targets would not be buildings as such but rather processes, and, given the aiming information now available, they could indeed be interrupted in lasting ways by a single night of bombing.

- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 12:49 AM

That link is your blog, thinker? I don't buy this for a minute.
Whoever created that blog however, has done a pretty good job, although they've forgotten some horrible "traditions" regarding girls. The pictures were hard to watch, but probably necessary. The person who did that obviously has brains.
That's not you, thinker. So stop showing off and boasting with blogs of other people

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 12:55 AM

Fallout can make your hair fall out so that you don't need a burqa. Fallout can make your skin come off so that you can't wear a burqa. And fallout can kill you so that you don't need to read such stupid comments.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 12:58 AM

Yes, that is my blog, Melanie. Should I prove it by posting a message? Boy, you are niave. Which is what I have been saying all along. You underestimate. That is the achilles heel of Europeans. You underestimate your opponent.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 12:59 AM

Wise up people. The five major nuclear powers on this planet currently have the most amazing difficulty keeping the uranium haxafluoride cascade centrifuge production processes going. They are not akin to mag-lev but more akin to mag-containment. The idea that Iran, that can't even drill its own oil wells and has to import 80% of its own petrol (gas) could get several centrifuge cascades going to a point where nuclear weapons capability was a realistic possibility is just laughable.

Not possible.

This is islamic posturing to scare us because they think that they have got us on the run.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 12:59 AM

I underestimate you? Nooo, I think I've got the right picture of you.
You were only insulting here, I see no similarities to the views stated on that blog.
You don't want me to send the owner a message to tell them about you?

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:02 AM

Dear thethinker,

But fallout will kill just as surely as a moslem - in fact more surely. Do you want to sacrifice us so that you can survive?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 1:02 AM

so Domininc, your view is that we should not take the Iranians seriously, and we should therefore, take the European view and not take Iran out?

Well that is the problem with Europe. They don't believe the threat until it is too late. History repeating itself.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:03 AM

Dominic, don't take that idiot too seriously. You shouldn't bother with him or her.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:04 AM

Dear thethinker,

What, exactly, is the threat? They don't have, and can't get, the bomb. So what, exactly, are we supposed to attack?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 1:05 AM

What is the threat? You are here on jihadwatch and you ask that question?

Time to go back to islam 101. Robert Spencer has some books for you.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:07 AM

Dear melaniefromgermany,

I see what you mean. Unwinable argument due to shifting bases. Thanks.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 1:08 AM

Dear Dominic,
good there are people like you. Without them, there would be no peace on earth.
I'm leaving now. My best wishes for you.

Melanie

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:11 AM

Dear thethinker,

Stop moving the argument. Islam is the threat. I've already acknowledged that. We were talking about about the, non-existent, nuclear threat from Iran.

I have to go to bed now, but thanks for the discussion.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 3, 2006 1:11 AM

James Woolsey over at Front Page magazine has another strategy to help the West win. True, in the beginning of his article he puts out, without evidence, the tired notion that Islam is not itself extreme. But then he outlines how, even with current technology, we can soon largely liberate ourselves from gasoline. Woolsey:

If you have 125-mile-per-gallon, because it’s a plug-in hybrid car and it is running on 85 percent ethanol and only 15 percent gasoline, you have something in the ballpark of a 500-mile-per-gallon [of gasoline] car with existing technology.

You want to get the Wahhabi’s attention, that’s the way to do it.

If Woolsey is not talking pie-in-the-sky here, 500-miles-per-gallon of gasoline (because we would be using mostly ethanol and doing so with plug-in hybrids) would mean we would cut our gasoline use by 95 percent.

Woolsey notes that apart from oil, the Arab countries plus Iran, with a combined population approximating to that of the United States plus Canada -- about 340 million -- exports less than Finland, with a population of only 5 million. That would seem to mean that if, as Woolsey suggests, the world used only five percent of the gasoline it currently uses, the Arab world would go bankrupt. We have to push this with our politicians. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 1:13 AM

Non existent nuclear threat from Iran? Well in that my friend Dominic, you will find no support here. Or in most places. The world already suspects that Iran is close to making weapons.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:14 AM

lol, "thinker", nooo. I'm a girl, and I have a blog with some friends that is very similar to the blog that you (hahaaaaa) claimed. Only we have the better (or more comprehensive) background info and links. We had some technical problems though, which they (lol, not you) solved in a better way.
And now go and drop dead. The world is a better place without you.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:20 AM

Plugging in the car in the garage sounds good, but where does the electricity come from? Some fossil fuel fired generating plant most likely. What we need is a lot more nuclear reactors to make the plut in idea work.

Posted by: bobalharb at May 3, 2006 1:26 AM

plug in ideda work

Posted by: bobalharb at May 3, 2006 1:27 AM

plug in idea work, ahh...

Posted by: bobalharb at May 3, 2006 1:27 AM

lol, bobalharb, many ideas

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:29 AM

Thinker,

As soon as I read that last obscene post by "Melanie" I knew right away "she" was a Muslim male.It was the reference to your heritage along with the ape comment that was the tipoff.I've seen similar comments from Muslim males before.Don't Muslims claim Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys?

Posted by: Roxane at May 3, 2006 1:32 AM

Thinker, you know, I really believe you have a serious problem.
I can imagine you have experience with people who state their opinion here, which might be even a bit critical towards the States from time to time. But you don't need to fear it, since JihadWatch uses censorship and deletes unwanted messages.
Bye, funny idiot

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:36 AM

Roxane, that is what I mean by the cowardice of islamics. They come here masquerading as western females. Which is quite appropriate since that is what they do in Iraq. They will dress as women to take pot shots at US soldiers. Cowards. Slime

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:36 AM

However, it cannot be by nuclear means - even if the enemy were to use nuclear weapons against us.

I scratch my head when I read comments like this. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons...twice. Why in the world would you think nukes would not be used against an enemy that committed such an atrocity on American soil? If Muslims are so foolish as to use a nuke on American city and thousands are dead or dying. The people will demand blood and we'll get it. American politicians who want to save their hides are not going to care what Muslims or Europeans think.

Posted by: Roxane at May 3, 2006 1:38 AM

lol Roxane
you just didn't see what he wished on me on a different forum. That guy is really sick.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:38 AM

oh, and paranoid. And a sexist swine. Which didn't surprise me. lol. I'm a female feminist, idiot, and I know that kind of men.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:40 AM

give it up Yousef "Melanie" Ali Mohammad. By the way, isn't it time for you to bang your head on the floor in prayer, or something?

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:42 AM

A few things to keep in mind for those of you worrying about uranium isotope 235 production.

Only half as much plutonium isotope 239 is needed to make a fission weapon as U-235.

Pu-239 is an artificial element, produced from slow neutron bombardment of U-238 (you know, the stuff that makes up 99% of the uranium pulled outta the ground).

Implosion-type weapons with plutonium cores are more difficult to assemble from a parts-manufacturing standpoint than gun-type uranium fission devices, but a helluva lot easier than trying to isolate all that U-235.

I don't doubt that even the Iranians have enough brains to produce sufficient quantities of Pu-239 for a few weapons.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 1:43 AM

"Melanie"

For the record I didn't think you were a Muslim male until that last comment you made to Thinker.As soon as I read your comment I knew you were a Muslim male.

Posted by: Roxane at May 3, 2006 1:44 AM

ok, I'll tell this my mum and dad, roxanne. Hope they wont throw me out

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 1:47 AM

That's funny, an islamic man claiming to be opposed to rape and degradation of women. Give it up. You've been exposed as a jihadist on this site by a member that knows all about Islam. He even has a site dedicated to showing it to the world.

You're not the first to troll here. Now go and bang you head on the floor, and pray for Allah to punish me and all infidels for defying your will to infiltrate jihadwatch.org.

Next time come back as "ShirleyfromEngland" but watch the "pig", "swine", and "ape" references if want to be mistaken for a naive or Leftist European woman.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 1:51 AM

lol, I could give you the link to the blog I worked out with my friends, but as swollen as your head is, you won't want to know anyway.
It's just a pity, because if that's really your blog, we could have shared a few things and some of our links, e.g. to women shelters and organisation that might be interesting for you as well.
I already set up a mail to the owner with some files, but if it's you, there's no point. The whole work in vain.
But I still can't believe you're the same person. Maybe you have different personalities.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 2:00 AM

Just so everyone is clear on a certain point: if any WMD is used against the United States or her allies, especially a nuclear weapon, the response from the U.S. military will be "swift and overwhelming".

I might paraphrase, but I know that contingent has been on the books for as long as I've been alive and most likely before. There is no gray area here.

Nuke us and there will literally be Hell to pay.

Let's hope nobody on this planet is stupid enough to find out.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 3, 2006 2:07 AM

Give it up Yousef. I have no email on my blog, so you couldn't have sent me anything. Don't you jihadists get it yet? We know how lies and decept are part of Islam's tactics. Except you are such a lousy liar.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 2:08 AM

there is no proof the blog is yours anyway. I don't know how you figure i'm a jihadist, but have it your way

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 2:13 AM

Melanie,

Here are some guidelines the owners of this website have posted concerning comments.

You can find this in the archives under:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006_03.php

Komments kraziness
I don't read most of the comments here, but I have been alerted to the fact that once again many of the threads here are being used as platforms by people with various agendas that have little or nothing to do with the common defense we need to be presenting against the global jihad.

So I refer you once again to this piece by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald, explaining what this site, and open comments, are for. 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.

I will not close comments. I still believe the antidote to bad speech is more speech. I still believe that out of open discussion good can come, and it has, here, in the comments field, on many occasions. And I vehemently reject the charges by hate groups and hateful individuals that I am somehow responsible for one class of comments here but not for those entered by people with opposing views. I am not responsible for any of the comments here except those that I myself make, and it is extremely telling that those groups cannot find anything in my own writings to buttress their claims.

As I have explained many times here, comments are unmoderated. If you would like to donate to us a sum substantial enough to enable us to hire a fulltime moderator, it will be gratefully received. But until then, the policing can and will only be sporadic. Nevertheless, it is not nonexistent. Comments referring to "Muzzies," advocating genocide, or making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims or anyone else will be deleted if seen (and if you care about our work in defense of human rights here, please bring them to my attention in an email and I will delete them). Comments that are breathtakingly off-topic, racist, made up of endless pasted-in articles from other sources, semi-literate or illiterate, or abusive or threatening are likewise unwelcome.

If you are interested in defending the West and the ideas of the equality of rights and dignity of all, do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us.

And again, if anything -- anything -- tops your personal agenda other than defending Western civilization from those who would destroy it, and you want to make defending Western civilization subordinate to agreement with you on the other points of your agenda, please take your comments elsewhere. And thank you.

Posted at 08:26 AM | Comments (255)

And here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008959.php

Hugh Fitzgerald explains what this site, and open comments, are for

Recently Jihad Watch has been embroiled in controversy over the comments field. Not only did CAIR try to trump up a case against me using not my words, but those of unmoderated commenters here, but also I have been receiving a series of emails complaining about various commenters who have been banned and various comments that have been erased, and others that have not been -- with the complaint made that we favor one side of an alleged debate.

That is, of course, false. Comments, as I have said many times, are unmoderated. Anyone is free to take whatever side and to disagree with or criticize me or Hugh, as anyone who reads the comments for an extended period can attest. One can easily find in the archives many, many dissenters from our positions and even apologists for violent jihad. And, pace CAIR, I have also said many times that comments that are abusive, genocidal, paint all Muslims with a broad brush, etc., are unwelcome. Off-topic rants, politically motivated baiting, etc., are unwelcome also.

However, as I actually spend my days tracking jihad activity and writing about it, I don't have time to monitor the comments. I remove posts that are brought to my attention. Since I don't see most comments and this is an unmoderated forum, no fair-minded person can draw any conclusions about what I believe from those that remain -- although I am aware that there are many people with agendas reading the site (Hi, Hussam! Hi, Ibrahim!).

Do we ban people with whom we disagree? As Hugh wrote to me this morning, "Then we'd have to ban everyone in the world, and then you'd have to ban me, and I'd have to ban you, and the page would be blank, blank, blank, beneath the blaze of noon."

Why do we continue to allow comments at all? Because we believe that the antidote to bad speech is more speech, and that a free and open discussion of issues relating to Islamic terrorism is needed now more than ever, and is increasingly difficult to come by.

Anyway, Hugh recently had an encounter with a commenter who represented himself as a Roman Catholic and parroted many lines, as longtime readers can see, of apologists for Islamic terror. Of course, he doubtless was who he said he was, as there are useful idiots in every camp, but in any case, after receiving many substantive replies, he responded indignantly that he thought this was a place for the free exchange of ideas, and stalked away. Hugh asked me to post his rejoinder as an article, and I am happy to oblige:

"I somehow mistakenly believed that this was a forum for trading ideas/facts/arguments back and forth." -- from a posting by a wounded and disillusioned poster here
You were mistaken. This is in the main a pedagogic site, with occasional time out for paronomastic play and musings on language. Postings cannot be patrolled, though egregious examples of a lack of decorum will be removed when brought to the attention of the bouncer in the back, the one chatting up the hat-check girl. That some choose to trade insults with one another, to crudely or rudely emote, or to bite at the proferred bait of those trolling invitingly for unwary fish in McElligot's Pool, is not part of the site's intent, is not encouraged, is actively discouraged. And not only by the bouncer and that fetching hat-check girl.

There are many sites where people can "trade," as you put it, "ideas/facts/arguments" -- in short, all that Internet equivalent of the late-night discussion of such fascinating freshman dorm-room topics as "Is there a God?" and "Free Will and Determinism" and "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" and "Why Good Things Happen to Bad People," and "Whether Pigs Have Wings." These are sites where no one really rises beyond a certain level. The cretins come to dominate, because they have the most stamina, while the intelligent, if they ever showed up in the first place, often drop out dismayed. True equality in the Great Democracy of the Internet is as much to be deplored as Democracy and Equality in any school or classroom, from that of the first-grade teacher in the hopelessly progressive school who has his charges vote on whether the next unit should be on dinosaurs or on Greek mythology, to the college teacher who glows as he tells you about how his students acquire the "Learning Experience" and complacently assures you that "I don't teach my students -- my students teach me. I learn so much from them."
Give me the sober atmosphere of the series of lectures on "Our Debt to Antiquity," delivered in 1903 by Dr. Zielinski of the University of St. Petersburg to the highest classes of that city's secondary schools, or Professor Nikolai Trubetzkoy in 1934 delivering lectures on Slavic phonology at the University of Vienna, or Dr. Yuri Lotman in 1977, in his Tartu exile, speaking on "Literature and Literariness in Pushkin" to rapt listeners who had arrived by train from Moscow and even Siberia in order to hear him speak. In each case, however passionately divine the icy intellect, human warmth heaved behind the glinting glasses. And a perfect internal thermostat, to be adjusted as needed, between that human and that divine. No nonsense, no sentimental "democracy in the classroom" or "learning" through trading of "ideas/facts/arguments," no voting by students as to whether they'd like to build models of a Triceratops this month or would prefer to draw pictures of Hercules killing the Erymanthian Boar. Spare us, please, all that yearning for earnest freshman-year exchanges of "ideas" and "arguments" -- as you optimistically call them.

There are many websites where you can engage, ad libitum, in those Yankee-swapmeets of "ideas/facts/arguments" in which you express such an interest. Your own postings offered little in the way of fact, or cogent argument, so one wonders. Exaggerated attention was given to such matters as the religious affiliation of your best friend, and the ethnic and religious identification of those to whom you are related by marriage, and you took great care to identify yourself (who cares?), more than once, as a "Roman Catholic." All of these inconsequential details -- conservative Jewish best friend, Lebanese Christian in-laws, Roman Catholic faith -- are apparently supposed to place your youth-wants-to-know disingenuous apologetics for Islam, no matter how lame or inane, as beyond criticism, because of that best friend who davens, that sister-in-law who cooks such fabulous kibbeh, and your own unforgettable if largely forgotten memorizing of the Baltimore Catechism when you were a kid and what you really wanted was to watch the Baltimore Colts on television. You have been semaphoring that not only are you most definitely not a Muslim (who cares?) but that you are surrounded by those who are most definitely not Muslims either, and that it must follow, therefore... -- therefore, what must follow?

At those thousands of sites where you can trade "ideas/facts/arguments" with the like-minded or unlike-minded, the kind of thing you have offered by way of ex-ungue-leonem sample would fit right in. And at the same sites, at no extra charge, you may exchange thoughts and feelings with others about what you think and especially what you feel, to your heart's content.

This site is not one of them.

Posted by Robert at November 12, 2005 05:43 AM | Print this entry | Email this entry

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

Posted by: Abby at May 3, 2006 2:16 AM

I think the most pessimistic time frame for Iran getting nukes is around 5 to 10 years, isn't it? And they might already have something that they acquired from Pakistan or elsewhere, mightn't they? So I don't understand Dominic's certainty that Iran can't get nukes (though I am prepared to learn from him).

That said, the poster who calls himself thethinker is um, well, just a wee bit too easy going about the use of nukes. He speaks about it like someone speaking about renovating his home. The risks of using nukes are so obviously momentous, that we must assume that thethinker is either kidding and trying to have a little fun at our expense with this, or else he is under the sway of the impetuous carelessness of green youth. It is embarrassing to have to actually say something so obvious: that no one in a responsible position who actually has to push the button -- except maybe someone like Amadinejad -- would take seriously thethinker's kind of reckless chatter about using nukes. At best that kind of chatter is part of brainstorming, but one brainstorms knowing full well that most of the ideas produced are not serious, and that brainstorming is only the beginning of the thinking process. Thethinker is ribbing us by pretending to be someone who wants to jump right from brainstorming about nuclear war into acting on his first or second brainstorm, and damn the consequences or complications!

I appreciate a number of aspects of thethinker's contributions, and hope he will keep posting, but hope he's gotten this ribbing out of his system and will quit kidding us. (Also, if possible, it would be great if you tried a little harder to "play nice" and be more charitable to the other posters, though we often don't deserve it.) - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 2:31 AM

Abby, fact is that the comments may not be moderated, but they get censored.
I tried to be polite and post messages that don't take offence and concern the subject, but if someone sais he wishes I get raped and killed, you'll excuse if I react accordingly. And given that the post hurt me and that it was really offensive, I think I was rather polite.
If I crossed the line with my posts, I'm sorry.
But the message that was deleted was a completely fair and polite statement concerning the subject, but obviously, that's enough to get censored on this site. Therefore I was a bit angry. But actually it's sad.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 2:36 AM

And Abby, what really makes me sad is your self-righteousness, your open hatred and your "we-know-it-all-better-than-you"-attitude. Really, who do you think you are?

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 2:50 AM

Hi Melanie,
I have never been aware of censorship on this site. Are you sure there is not some misunderstanding? Computers and the internet are funny things and sometimes I try to post and my post doesn't go and I have to do it again, or things get lost because a system goes down, many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, twixt a computer and a server. Are you sure you are giving the site the benefit of the doubt here? Maybe there is a mistake somewhere, and no intentional censorship? - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 2:50 AM

Omar, I get your point, but it was intentional. My post had already appeared on the chatboard. I don't care so much about that individual post, but I'm worried that it happens at all. Therefore I mentioned it. It was a bit critical towards the US government and obviously it just didn't fit in.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 2:54 AM

Even I have had a post deleted now and again, either by intent or by mistake or by whim of the Fates. I don't recall carrying on about it though. And considering my temperment, that's kind of amazing.

Now, though, I'm more concerned with the current debacle. I wasn't paying attention earlier but now my curiosity has gotten the best of me.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 3, 2006 2:54 AM

Melanie,
Well, but this site is often critical of the U.S. government, so I don't understand. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 2:55 AM

Hehe...hang around and you'll see quite a bit of criticism where the U.S. government is concerned. It's well deserved and most of the time it comes from the Americans that post here, like myself.

If a post was deleted, I'm willing to bet that wasn't the reason.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 3, 2006 2:57 AM

Melanie,
I guess for these accusations to be understood, I would have to see the post. I don't disbelieve you, I just don't really know what to make of it, because as it stands now it's all too vague. I just don't understand why Hugh or Robert would delete a post merely for being critical of the US government. They often criticize the government, so musn't the reason have been something else?
If I knew what the post actually said it would be easier to discuss this. Oh well. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:00 AM

I didn't see the reason myself, foehammer, and I didn't expect it either. It was on: "Fitzgerald: Fatuity, waste and danger", not offensive or anything, and I guess they want to keep the regular posters happy or prevent a discussion.
I only brought it up because I think if censorship takes place, that's never a good sign, and the freedom of opinion should be acknowledged even here.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:02 AM

The deletions usually have something to do with her implying that all US soldiers are "criminals", and making specious claims about them committing "atrocities" agianst all those poor innocent jihadis. She's full of the self-righteous anger of the average 17 year old who needs not let pesky facts or evidence get in the way of her opinions.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 3:03 AM

I believe if I post it again, they will delete it again, Omar, but I said that not all was good what the US troops did in iraq and that I'm scared for the people they have arrested, having in mind the reports on prisoner abuse.
I guess they didn't want a long discussion, that's all. well, lol, there you are. But I'm off now.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:06 AM

Melanie,
One other thing. I guess that you have been somewhat mistreated here on this thread by some of the posters. My sense (perhaps innaccurate) is that part of that is your fault. But only part. To the extent that it wasn't your fault, my heart went out to you for all the hostility you had to endure on this thread. It's no fun when that happens. (At least not for me.) - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:06 AM

Thanks, Eisenhund, and I thought you were ok

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:08 AM

thanks Omar. I guess I deserved some of it.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:09 AM

melanie,

You need to chill a little bit.

Thinker,

I like your posts, but you should realize that talk of nuclear war is unsettling for a lot of people. Especially to people like melanie who if she isnt a Muslim troll (I have my suspicions as well) hails from a country that was in the front line of the cold war. Nuclear devestation was something the Germans had to live with everyday for the last 50 years or so. That coupled with the hiding they took from the allies tends to push most Germans (in my experience) into liberal la la land, hence her vitriol towards your beating the drums of war.

IMHO we are already well on the way to a global war. As such we should try to control the escalation so that a nuclear exchange becomes the last fall back position. Militarily we are in a position to deal with the present conflict with conventional weapons. However should things continue to spiral out of control I am with you in that we should use our nukes first and damn the consequences. Also I agree that Europe taking some collateral damage from a nuclear exchange would be a fitting punishment for its slide into dhimmitude at the hands of yellow bellied liberals and multiculturalists.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:11 AM

To Eisenhund and Melanie:

Well if Melanie implied in a post that all U.S. soldiers are criminals committing atrocities, I guess I can imagine that Hugh or Robert might delete it simply to prevent a fruitless war of hostile words bereft of thought, since a lot of people would (understandably) get a little angry and meaningful discussion might end? To say such things might create such animus that reflection and polite decorum could go completely out the window. I don't know, just speculating in thin air here, so I guess it's time to let go of this bone.
- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:13 AM

Some of us did see your post, melanie. It was vile, libelous, and completely off topic.

This is not your personal soapbox. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. Neither Mr. Spencer nor the moderators are beholden to you nor are they obliged to display anything you write.

-Omar

If you'd seen the posting she's referring to, the one on the "Fitzgerald: Fatuity, waste and danger" thread, you might not be so magnanimous toward her, unless your opinion of the US military is that they're not substantially different than the Gestapo.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 3:14 AM

"not substantially different from..."

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 3:16 AM

Eisenhund, why are you saying that. It's not true and you know it.
Of course they are not obliged to print all posts, but if they delete some, it's still called censorship.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:19 AM

I never said such a thing, Eisenhund.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:20 AM

Melanie

Submit the post again, lets have a look at it. That way we can decide if it was too outrageous.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:23 AM

Omar said

The risks of using nukes are so obviously momentous, that we must assume that thethinker is either kidding and trying to have a little fun at our expense with this, or else he is under the sway of the impetuous carelessness of green youth.

Don't worry Omar, either way thethinker is not in control of our nuclear arsenal. Luckily, we have a highly intelligent, extremely mature and rational President in control of our... waitaminute, we're in a deep load of doodoo!

But nukes or no-nukes is kind of beside the point. I think an attack that dwarfs 9/11 is coming, and the response to it will dwarf what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of the methodology, I think disaster is just off the horizon.

BTW, thethinker, nice job on lifting the burqa on melanie/Yousef. Now, can we all play along on the game of "Ignore the Troll"?

Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 3:24 AM

that's above my computer skills, km. lol. But if it had been like Eisenhund suggested, I'd be glad they deleted it, and I wouldn't object. But it wasn't. My point was just the censorship.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:28 AM

Ok, well, whatever she said or didn't say, maybe it's time to let it go.

As for me, I am far from thinking US soldiers are like Gestapo. I think US soldiers, though far from perfect, are among the least misbehaved, most civilized, soldiers history has ever seen. So they make me extremely, extremely proud to be American.
- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:29 AM

So what did you say in the post exactly it doesnt have to be word for word a brief outline will do.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:30 AM

Actually I could go for Londonistan as well.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:35 AM

I said that some us troops committed crimes there and that, having the reports in mind, I was worried about the people they arrested last week.

And I think there's reason to be scared for them, they just won't take any photos any more to prove it.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:36 AM

What exactly did I say that you said that you are refuting? I did not claim to quote you once. I said to Omar that if his opinion of the US military is that they resemble the Gestapo, implying that he might have a negative view of the latter group, then he might agree with the posting in question.

You keep prattling on about how bad American soldiers are.
Fine, we get it.
Move on.

Same thing with this continuous whining about "censorship" that you've been posting on thread after thread.

This is a privately owned site, not public.
You are not an American citizen, you have no 1st Amendment right to post whatever you please and expect it to be kept up.
You post here at the sufferance of the site's owner and moderators.
This is not a US Constitutional law argument site.
Once again, move on.

PS - No Omar, I never thought that was your opinion. Just making a point.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 3:41 AM

special_guest said:

Don't worry Omar, either way thethinker is not in control of our nuclear arsenal. Luckily, we have a highly intelligent, extremely mature and rational President in control of our... waitaminute, we're in a deep load of doodoo!

Ok, you got me laughing.

But Bush has advisors and I think however immature he is, he is mature enough that if he had to consider nuking people, he would listen to the many sides of the argument his different advisors would present and then take anxious care and deliberation before acting...or is that too sanguine a view? ; )

I tend to agree that something large will come -- though it might not happen till after a 10 year hudna is up -- which is to say, in September of 2011 or after.

The scientist Martin Rees has a bet for a thousand pounds that by 2020 a million people will die in a single event due to bioterror or bioerror. He hopes to lose the bet, but is confident he won't. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:44 AM

Of course they are not obliged to accept all posts, if they want they can delete any post that doesn't start with Dear Robert, no one has the right to have their message posted.

But that's still called censorship, that was all I said. Now chill out, man, and drop it. This is getting on my nerves.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:47 AM

I wouldnt be careful about buying into the propaganda of US troops being abusive. The leftwing media and islamo appolagists have a tendancy to blow things out of proportion.

I have yet to see anything that looks like serious prisoner abuse i.e systematic torture. What I have seen looks more like frat party games you see in universities across the globe. All very tame if you were to compare it to any number of totalitarian regiemes across the world.

If you are here because of genuine concern about the global jihad you would do better to concentrate on the problem at hand rather than worrying about the sensibilities of those that would try and kill and subjugate you.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:48 AM

If you think this 'hudna' stuff carries any weight, you kinda have to ask "who does it constrain?".

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 3:49 AM

'hudna' this is a new one to me I think, anyone care to explain that one to me.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 3:52 AM

I believe "hudna" is a ten year "truce" that Muslims offer their enemies when they are losing.It is so Muslims can gather strength to fight again. From what I can see a "hunda" is worthless since it is only to benefit Muslims and can be broken anytime for any reason.

Posted by: Roxane at May 3, 2006 3:55 AM

wow, km, I hope people are not tortured to death in US universities?? Quite frankly, you people here scare me. Maybe you mean well and I see islam as a big problem too, but I'm a bit upset by the open hatred that is obvious in many posts. Islam is a huge threat, but it's not the only one. You act like there were no other terrorist organisation, like the IRA had never bombed England or the ETA had never terrorized Spain.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 3:55 AM

To be clear the truce is offered only when Muslims are weak and losing.That was the idea behind the "truce" offer from Bin Laden to the US and Hamas offer of a "hunda" to Isreal.

Posted by: Roxane at May 3, 2006 3:58 AM

Eisenhund said:

If you think this 'hudna' stuff carries any weight, you kinda have to ask "who does it constrain?".

No one except whoever thinks it in his interest to have a truce/hudna.

A ten-year hudna is pure speculation on my part, Eisenhund. I've been wondering why nothing has happened in the US for the last five years, and so one of my ill-founded speculations is that our enemies are hurting bad, and they now know if they hit us again they are likely to get it back tenfold. But Islamic law only allows a truce/hudna for 10 years, no? That means if the enemy needs a break, he can wait till 2011 to hit us again. But actually, I suppose he can wait as long as he wants? I seem to recall an Islamic provision that says Muslims need not fight the enemy if the Muslims are too weak, so maybe the ten year limit to a truce wouldn't necessarily apply. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 3:58 AM

I kinda figured that you meant primarily al Qaeda (however the hell you spell it this week). Only problem is, not every one of the umpteen thousand jihadi clubs will likely go along.
Especially with those sociopathic Iranians and their "Revolutionary Guard" and Hezbollah.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 4:02 AM

Melanie

Where are the confirmed reports of people being systematically tortured to death by US military personnel.

Roxanne
Thanks

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 4:04 AM

km, British papers, e.g., like the guardian, even the Herald Tribune. There are even dead persons on the pictures that were in the press.
Alfred McCoy from the madison university in Michigan wrote a book about it, too. He sais it's all common practice, and not only a few bad apples.
You know, that's why I'm so scared for the people they arrested last week, was crying half the night when I heard it. I can't understand how people can be so heartless.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 4:11 AM

Melanie

There is a big difference between the dawa and the IRA and ETA and it is mainly one of scale and numbers.

The spread of sharia law across the globe and the demographic assault taking place on Europe right now is an Islamic WMD. Many people see that here and as such call for an equal response against the nation of Islam.

You need to understand that we are at war and have been for a long time. This may shock you but unless you wake up you will most probably end up a casualty of this war.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 4:13 AM

To Eisenhund (Irondog, yes?):

You are absolutely right. My speculation is only that quite a number of (not all) terror groups might spontaneously say to each other "Sheesh, these Americans are not to be trifled with, if we hit them again, how many more countries will they invade? Maybe they will nuke us? How bout we have a little hudna? Besides, any fool knows we can win this thing on the sly demographically if we just cool our moronic jets."

Ok, they wouldn't call themselves moronic, that was my insertion. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 4:15 AM

Melanie I would like to see the links. The Guardian is a pro Islamic paper so I wouldnt take what they say seriously. Also many academics here in the US are radically leftwing and will say anything to undermine the US.

I feel pretty confident in saying that if such a thing was taking place it would be all over the papers and media here. Just look at what happened with Abu grabe. No one was injured or killed they just humiliated the prisoners. The people involved have been imprisoned for multiple year terms.

There are many people in the US that would like to see the war against Islam fail, so rest assured should the evidence exist it would be very public indeed.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 4:18 AM

I don't have the links here with me, km, but if you like, you can mail me. I'm in a peace group at school and our teacher gave us a lot material, and I did a lot of research myself.

I don't know if it's allowed here to do that, but here's my mail: melanie_rieger@creative-spellwork.de

km, it is in the media everywhere, just not in the US. There are many sources.

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 4:23 AM

the general who took over Abu Ghraib and ordered it all, e.g., was not punished at all.
And in my opinion, we're not at war, each side thinks the other had provoked it.
But it's not just "the enemy", they are families and want to live a peaceful life, too

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 4:26 AM

-Omar

(Yep, that's it)

One might wonder, however, with all the Iranian sabre-rattling, perhaps Osama bin Hidin' and a.Q. may want to cut off any possibility of being seen as second string. I do believe that he is a sunni, and just because they may have a common enemy in the Infidel West, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for some good ol' healthy sunni-shia rivalry.

There could be something coming down the pike as a result of these two groups of twits trying to outdo each other.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 4:26 AM

"... the first place that we target will be Israel ..."

There's a thorough fisking of the odious Juan Cole by Christopher Hitchens in a recent LGF thread. Cole had tried to tell lies about what Ahmadinejad had said, had wished to imply that he had not threatened Israel. Hitchens takes the false witness Cole's testimony apart with ease and style:

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/fr/rss/

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 3, 2006 4:33 AM

As to Melanie, I have a request of people on this thread. Obviously no one has to go along with it if you think it's a stupid request or a request I have no right to make. Here it is: If you find what Melanie says foolish, or you believe she is a Muslim provocateur pretending to be a German female, and you have difficulty responding to her without attacking her or becoming angry at her, ignore her. But if you do respond to her, respond to her calmly and politely. After all, if she is a Muslim provocateur then maybe her purpose would be to provoke anger and cause vitriolic mud-throwing fights and lower the tone here. And if she is not a Muslim and truly a German female and you find her opinions foolish or obnoxious, wouldn't it be more fruitful either to ignore her or else state calmly why you think she is mistaken? Rarely does angry bitter polemic help people learn (though, on the other hand, I admit that, like a car accident, mudfights can draw crowds of fascinated rubberneckers), and all that vitriole probably does help this site, am I wrong? - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 4:38 AM

And in my opinion, we're not at war, each side thinks the other had provoked it.

Melanie you need to wake up, Islam is at war with the west and has been for centuries.

The only peace you will be able to achieve with Muslims is either through conversion to Islam or dhimmitude. That is something I am sure you dont want.

Why dont you ask your teacher about Islamic expansionism, the reasons for the crusades, who Charles Martel was, what happened in Vienna in 1683 and why 95% of the conflicts occuring today involve Islam.

It is obvious you are little young (nothing wrong with that) but I think you are trying to work out a very complicated and old problem without all the facts. Browse this site and some of the articles Robert Spencer has written follow up on the links and litreture. And finally dont believe everything that your teacher tells you.

Posted by: km at May 3, 2006 4:38 AM

To Eisenhund (Irondog - cool name)

Absolutely. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 4:42 AM

ok, I'll check that about Charles Martel and the other things, km. Thanks for that. The negative sides of islam are not really mentioned at our schools, because it could seem intolerant, which is wrong in my view.
But I believe you don't see the whole picture either, because maybe you haven't enough information. (There is even a picture, e.g., when Sabrina Harman is grinning, bending over a dead man, and he wasn't the only one)

Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 3, 2006 4:48 AM

Of course in that previous post what I meant to say was: "all that angry vitriole probably does not help this site." (I accidentally typed "does" in the previous post when I meant to type "does not")
- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 4:58 AM

You act like there were no other terrorist organisation, like the IRA had never bombed England

Very rarely. Most of their bombings took place in Northern Ireland, because that was where they were located. (Not that it's particularly relevant, but let's deal with fact not myth; there are far too many loose assertions and poor parallels floating around already.) What is of relevance is that it has to be said that, in most cases, the IRA gave warning before detonating explosives. The same can be said of Eta, whom you also mentioned. These groups had limited, nationalistic agendas that they wished to promote, and while they were certainly unpleasant enough in themselves - for example, paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, and particularly the IRA, used brutal punishment beatings to assert control over "their" communities - were not usually in the business of taking matters beyond the level at which one gets bad publicity.

Islamic terrorists simply do not care about such things. Their aim is not even merely to use terror as a political weapon for grabbing concessions from the frightened (c.f. the Spanish elections), but also simply to kill and maim - actions seen as meretorious in themselves.

Consider this:

If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, the French would be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, ‘We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.’

That says it all: "No problem. They are all infidels."

Notice also that they do not have some limited set of demands, which would make some kind of negotiation possible. They are driven by a supremacist ideology that knows no limitations on its territorial and political ambitions and regards all non-Muslims as lesser beings, ripe for disintegration with explosives, or, at best, for a degraded, economically exploited, and subordinate existence - but only after enough people have been killed in a bloody subjugation to make the point that the whole activity is "spiritual". As the Koran says:

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.

And all this is nothing new. There is a long history of it - see this essay for a short historical outline:

Goebbels and the jihadist youth

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 3, 2006 5:07 AM

Melanie, I don't know what level you are at in school, but an excellent and easy to read book about Islam in Europe was written by Bruce Bawer, and is called While Europe Slept. Bawer is a talented writer who spent a great deal of time in Europe and speaks many languages, so he was able to learn a lot about what is going on there. He is gay, by the way, but that doesn't come into the book much. If you ever get a chance to read that book, you'd get another side to the picture. Islam might one day take away your freedom, especially as a female, if Europeans are not more alert. Many experts say that by the end of this century, the majority of people in Europe will be Muslims, because so many Muslim immigrants are coming into Europe, and the Muslim immigrants have many many more babies than the native Europeans. When Islam becomes a majority, Europe could become like other Muslim lands, where women have very restricted rights (as you put it before when you gave me an enjoyable laugh -- you said they can be treated as "somewhere between an animal and an amoeba"). Maybe all this I am telling you is old news to you. If so, sorry to type so much at you, just hoping to be helpful. - Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 5:11 AM

Melanie -- it was you who said that about the animal and amoeba, wasn't it? Now I can't find where you said it so maybe I'm mistaken.
- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 3, 2006 5:26 AM

Yes, she did:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011267.php#c209509

Melanie,

I don't want to overload you with material, but an important point to be made is that Israelis have been suffering from the jihad for years and few of us were aware of that, imagining that we saw nations clashing because our thinking is in terms of nation-states (c.f. Peace of Westphalia). There has also been a lot of deceitful propaganda aginst Israel. But take look at those who hate them and how those people teach their children to hate. It is quite an eye-opener:

palestinian child abuse site:littlegreenfootballs.com

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 3, 2006 5:43 AM

Do not read the Bruce Bawer book that is recomended. I almost bought it. He is a gay liberal clinton lover who was smart enought to realize that Islam was hazardous to his health. I give him credit for not being stupid. But this bastard has refered to the Bosnia and Kosovo missions as successful. He has refered to Le Pen as a right wing extremist. Anyone who uses this kind of language wants it both ways. He wants the world to be un PC when dealing with Islamists, but he wants to imprison the rest of us with his PC ideology. The only way to defeat Islam is to defeat Political Correnctness. Do not suppport Bruce Bawer.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at May 3, 2006 5:44 AM

Hold on a second pissedofcanadian, it does not matter whether he is a left wing liberal, who still believes in multiculturism or not, he has recognised Islam as an enemy of all that he holds dear. If you define Islam as we have, then you will see that those people who signed the Eustonmanifesto (see Harry's Place) have got it too.

Islam is being recognised as a real and extreme threat to liberal secular freedom, he has it right in that we have to recognise when we can no longer be tolerant or even PC to the intolerant or non-PC.

It does not matter what you call it, but for me I would be happy to stand next to a left winger as I would to a right winger in confronting Islam.

I would not call Bosnia or Kosovoo sucessful, but Le Pen is a right wing extremist.

Melenie, you really do sound like a Islamic or Islamic apologist, its the same stock in trade points of view you put out, but then again it could be due to the way you have been taught.

Best thing you can do is get out of the sandbox that your teachers have put you, and learn about it yourself.

And while attacking people like the Thinker realise that we all have our days, I told one person who made two stupid comments smiliar to yours that if the Iranians use the bomb I hope he is under it. Wrong yes, but I happan to be in the range of the longest range Iranian missiles, so I guess I had reason to say it.

Also the site is moderated, if moderators see such windup comm