Yep, I believe your interpretations to, once again, be right on the money, Mr. Spencer.

Shall we all fasten our seatbelts?

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 1:04 PM

My invitation to President Ima-mad-ding-dong: Go pound sand.

Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at May 11, 2006 1:11 PM

Given all the inane statements that the president has been making about Islam lately, don't be too surprised if he accepts this one.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 11, 2006 1:12 PM

Robert,
Your closing comment is most likely true. Ahmadinejad's intentions are quite transparent. Like the UN, he will build a case and then give fair warning. Unlike the UN, he will most likely sum up his warnings and pass judgement on the Western World. His personal pattern of self admiration holds just short of declaring himself the 12th man at this time.

A speech is imminent declaring that he has given us fair warning and we will now be forced to bow down to all followers of the prophet.

Posted by: StuartX at May 11, 2006 1:17 PM

mrcombi

She has made just as many inane statements about Islam. Don't forget her admonitions to him after his famous "Wanted dead or alive - Osama", or her visiting Temple Mount dressed as a Muslim, or introducing the Quran in the White House library. She is the stupidest woman on the GOP side - even worse than Condi. I am aghast that there are so many moderates who are impressed by her, and that she is an asset when it comes to election campaigns.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 11, 2006 1:20 PM

No Foe Hammer, the proper response is, "To arms, to arms!!! The jihad is coming, the jihad is coming!!!"

The Executive Branch of Government is playing coy with this issue. And I'm afraid that another September 11th, 2001 styled attack will have to happen before they get a clue. It pains me to say this. But, once again, "Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!!"
The "Puppet in Chief" gave the United States of America a clear declaration of war if "We the People" don't embrace Islam and the Bush Administration is more worried about a mention of Iran's nuclear program. What were they expecting, an invitation to a dance? Our politicains are about as brain dead as a paperweight, when it comes to Islam. Our President and members of the Legislative Branch of Government are not qualified to be over the business of protecting our shores. The illegal immigrant problem is a fine example of governments ineptitude to handle this issue. It's time to dig in. Ammo up and prepare for anything from the practioners of the "religion of peace." Our leaders of state are missing the point of the "Puppet in Chief's" missive of the U.S. Head of State. Now "We the People" have to take up the slack!!!

May the Wings of Liberty
Never lose a Feather!!!!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at May 11, 2006 1:24 PM

robert,thank you for you voice.doesn't sadr have the family background to be called the 12th imam,thought i read that somewhere?

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 1:27 PM

When the next attack happens we need to attack without restraint. We can't be worried about world opinion or the UN.

Posted by: elad at May 11, 2006 1:31 PM

It seems that Iran's Thug In Chief has issued the required call to Islam. Now we wait for the storm. The Western world better be ready, because we are entering one of the more critical periods in our history, indeed, the history of the world.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at May 11, 2006 1:33 PM

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

It's difficult to squeeze this into the "looking for common ground" nonsense that some in the MSM have been guilty of.

He didn't say which are common to all "peoples of the book". None of that nonsense. And "monotheism" means whatever he says it means, and that need not include the Christianity professed by President Bush. We also know whom Ahmedinejad means by "prophets" since he helpfully gave a listing. The list of prophets includes one ringer* and everyone else in it can be interpreted by him to have been anachronistically teaching Islam, in any case.

It all adds up to what the IRNA prints at the beginning of the interview: the letter is "an invitation to Islam and the prophets [sc prophet's] culture".

* A ringer is a stolen car whose vehicle identification number plate has been replaced from a car of the same type which had been written off in a car accident.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 11, 2006 1:34 PM

Thanks for the invite, Moo. But I think the President is disinclined to join up with an ideology that has a policy of dealing with "reverts" who might have a change of heart by lopping off their hearts.

Just a hunch.

Posted by: scaramouoche at May 11, 2006 1:45 PM

This must might be the best thing that has happened in years. If Ahmedinajad is insane enough to declare war on the USA, let alone on the rest of the West as well, he will be annihilated. It will be the grandest smash since the French landed in Algiers - and found, to their enormous surprise, that in the whole country there was one single cannon. It has long been my view, contrary to Hugh's, both that events conspire to drive the West to a re-colonization of sorts of the whole Muslim world, and that it would be - in spite of inherent expence, violence and danger - on the whole a good idea. Unless the 12th Imam does come, which I do not think we need worry about, Iran looks like being the next Muslim country - after Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran - to fall under direct Western administration or protectorate.

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 1:45 PM

I heard "it's" letter to bush wednesday on talk radio. It was Jesus (peace be upon him), Jesus (pbuh) ect. He obviously thinks bush has the I.Q. of a twinky, and the American people as well. What a venomous, yet transparent jackal the "wind bag in chief" of iran is.

Posted by: mustang65 at May 11, 2006 1:48 PM

Paolo said

This must might be the best thing that has happened in years ... It has long been my view, contrary to Hugh's, both that events conspire to drive the West to a re-colonization of sorts of the whole Muslim world, and that it would be ... on the whole a good idea ... Iran looks like being the next Muslim country ... to fall under direct Western administration or protectorate.

Unfortunately, I believe GWB sees this as you do, as an opportunity to become the protectorate (my head is exploding at this point) of the Iranians.

Yes, let's please take another Islamic country under our wing, to nurture it and develop it and offer it money and technology and a brand new sparkling infrastructure. Let's station our National Guard troops in Iran for the next 10 years, they don't have any family or jobs to worry about, so they can protect the Iranian people. As our troops get blown up 10 by 10 day after day, let's debate which faction of Shi'ites in Iran are our friends and which are our enemies (as if any could be our enemy).

If Afghanistan and Iraq were not enough of a lesson to teach us how the Muslim world really feels about us, then I fear we may never get the message. After all this you still want more and more interaction with the Islamic world?

Posted by: special_guest at May 11, 2006 2:08 PM

there will be no troops in iran.there has never been a war like the one to come.please understand this war will be hell on earth.nothing can stop it not talk,gold or silver.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 2:13 PM

There is no need to rebuild Iran, we just have to destroy it.

Tear the country to bits and then leave. We are more than capable of doing that with or with out international support. We could probably do it with out using ground troops.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at May 11, 2006 2:22 PM

Robert --

Since you can't quite toot your own horn as it should be tooted on this occasion, mind if I do it for you? Of the thousands of solemn comments made on this letter, only one appeared to understand it right away as an invitation to embrace Islam -- yours, at Jihad Watch. Why? Why did none of those assorted pundits and experts interpret it as Ahmadinejad now tells us, plainly, it was meant to be interpreted?

When, in the first Bin Laden tape, he referred to the catastrophic event that had taken place "80 years before" and there was lots of puzzlement over what was clearly a reference to the ending, by Ataturk, of the Caliphate in 1924, one could possibly forgive the ignorance. After all, it was still 2001. But it is now 2006. Five years have gone by. A long time, time enough to study Islam, to study the texts, to study the history. Not so as to become a contributor to the next edition of "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" or the "Encyclopedia of Islam" or "The Legacy of Jihad," but at least enough to recognize the significance of such things as Ahmadinejad's letter.

So far, the only place to go, save for those run by ex-Muslims who of course are unfoolable, and know at once what is up, the only place where one can be sure of not being misled, is here.

I'm sure you regard this fantastic situation with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's nice to be right. On the other hand, you would gladly forego the honor and prefer, I suspect, to be just one in a crowd of hundreds of thousands, or millions.

What is it that a certain poster here likes to say?

Gold Star for you today.

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

Ahmad states: "it's response will determine the future..."

C L E A R L Y Admad is picking a fight with America with his cloak-and-dagger letter; as he knows our president will never concede to this so-called "Invitation to Islam".

Ahmad is simply following their Koranic/Moronic protocol-of-justice so they can justify the war they're anxious to pursue -- but that they will N E V E R win!!!

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

Our mortal enemies have told us IN DETAIL what they are doing. And Why. Pretty much even when and how.

Yes, the Iranian Chief Thug is ritually issuing an 'invitation to Islam' (Islam literally meaning surrender) to us before doing the unspeakable.

Our Achilles Heel as any fool can see is not in Pakistan, Morocco, Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Its Mexico.

Our borders ar wide open, Hezbollah (Iran's secret weapon) is firmly in place in Latin America - Mexico, Paraguay, Argentina the drug triangle, Venezuela, Suriname.

The vicious MS-13 drug and murder gang of illegals is in an intimate working relationship with terrorists. Cops and security have been lavishly bought-off throughout Latin America with drug and oil money.

We could close our borders in weeks. To not do so is TREASON.

We could completely end our dependency on imported oil in five years with a crash ethonol program. Brazil has already done it. There are bio- engineered versions of ethonol 7 to 10 times more effective than previously. Even the oil distributio and storage system we have is easily convertible.

Its like the nightmarish slow motion unreality of a car accident happening and everyone is frozen in horror as it happens.

The choices we are given are equivalent to 'what Muzak channel do you want to listen to as the jetliner goes down'.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 11, 2006 2:26 PM

Nations led by the delusional can't accurately estimate the strength/weakness/resolve of their enemies nor can they gauge the solidity of their true base of support in-country.

It's because of the lies and supression of the truth and groupthink. Remember the idiot in Baghdad who spouted all the reports on the war? Same thing, different day in Iran.

So Pres. Ahdmadejinad (?) thinks it's time to roll up and get it on; excellent for the United States. The sooner, the better. Does anyone think that Iran will stand against the United States? How delusional that is. Once the party starts we'll have support from his own people. I'm afraid it will go badly for him.

God bless the young people of Persia. Give them strength to overcome their oppressors.
Give the ladies a rifle and point them at the hijab police. They'll know what to do.

The sooner this comes to a head the safer we'll all be in the long run.

Iran to Persia and mullah'ed over the options. They're all good.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 2:31 PM

www.regimechangeiran.com has the photo of the hourglass that shows the globe of america broken at the bottom,and the one of israel falling on top of it. on its site again,they saw the same threat from iran today that we saw.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 2:33 PM

Mr. Ape Pig,
You are right. We do not need nukes to get rid of iran. Conventional weapons are enough provided we do not fall prey to "dying children" and "crying wives" stuff.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 11, 2006 2:33 PM

Amazing that Al'BBC didnt pick up on that one. Or choose to publish my comment pointing out Robert's interpretation..

Posted by: QueeQueeg at May 11, 2006 2:35 PM

Hi Hugh -

Question....what did you mean by this statement?

"On the other hand, you would gladly forego the honor (of being right) and prefer, I suspect, to be just one in a crowd of hundreds of thousands, or millions."

Please explain -- so I don't misunderstand the intent behind your message.

Posted by: champ at May 11, 2006 2:42 PM

Well, he'd rather everyone saw things correctly. By the way, if I overlooked someone else who may have come to the same conclusion, I apologize to that person. That would make two.

Posted by: Hugh at May 11, 2006 2:44 PM

Special Guest: you do not understand my point. I envisage the Muslim world being under PERMANENT military control. Most of it has already been under Western control for one, two, three centuries; not enough. This time, once we have defanged them and deprived them of the power to intrigue against us, let us never surrender it to them again - until Islam is either tamed or destroyed. I do not envisage EVER getting out of Bosnia, Iraq or Afghanistan. If anyone is dumb enough to do so, they will revert to centres of enemy conspiracy. What I envisage is a permanent colonial empire, paid for by oil and taxation, and intended to break the fangs of Islam. This will no doubt cost money and human lives. So how would it be different from the situation we are in now? If we have to fight Islam and spend money and lives against it, which is inevitable, let us do so in its own homeland rather than ours.

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 2:46 PM

Thanks Hugh -- I thought you were saying something else. Take care!

Posted by: champ at May 11, 2006 2:54 PM

The tradition of writing letters calling on non-Muslims to convert expanded under Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, the prophet's cousin and son-in-law and the fourth Caliph. Muhammad Ibn Hassan, the last of the 12 imams of Shi'ism, known as the "Hidden Imam" (whose return Ahmadinejad regards as imminent), also used letter writing as a means of communicating with the outside world, though he addressed most of his letters to Muslims. in general and his most ardent partisans in particular. But, as tradition demanded, he was not prepared to settle for anything less than a full and unconditional conversion of the entire humanity to his version of the faith.

Fast forward to 1987: We see the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini demonstrating his own epistolary talents by writing a letter, in the style of the Prophet, in response to a diplomatic feeler from Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev wanted the Islamic Republic to help Russia prevent the victory of the U.S.-backed mujahedin in Afghanistan. In exchange, Gorbachev would support the Islamic Republic in the face of mounting U.S. pressure.

As a good Muslim leader, however, Khomeini wanted everything. Thus he composed a letter inviting Gorbachev to convert to Islam before he could receive help in Afghanistan or anywhere else. (The Soviet leader politely declined.)

It would be wrong to dismiss Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush as just another of the Islamic leader's many weird habits. It would be more prudent, and better politics, to take Ahmadinejad seriously and try and understand him in his own terms.

His letter contains a crucial message: The present regime in Iran is the enemy of the current international system and is determined to undermine and, if possible, destroy it.

new york post,by amir taheri

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 2:56 PM

There is no need for Infidels to be permanently stuck in the sand-swamps of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Telemachy -- he who fights from afar. From 1991 to 2003, American forces in the sky, with not a soldier on the ground, protected Kurdistan completely. Any Western country or govnement that keeps troops in these places, instead of minimizing that presence, and emphasizing the divisions that within Islam -- ethnic, sectarian, and also economic -- that can divide, demoralize, disrupt, be a source of constant instability and dismay, will find that its own people will soon display a lack of support, and even a lack of interest, in combatting the menace of all of the instruments of Jihad. That cannot be allowed. For that reason alone, the need to disseminate information, and then understanding, about Islam, and to use the cleverest and least costly methods, the notion of keeping large numbers of troops abraod is dangerous, and will not be allowed to continue. What is most likely to happen is that if such policies are pushed, publics in Western coungries, including the United States, will vote in those politicians who are opposed to such ventures not for good reasons (a good reason would be so as to encourage division with Iraq, for example, and even to have that conflict affect other countries in Dar al-Islam), but for bad ones.

If American soldiers are still in Iraq in a year, that will be the end for any Republican chances in 2008, and for those in the Democratic Party who may apprehend the menace, and varied instruments, of Jihad correctly.

Resources -- men, money, materiel -- are limited. And limited too, and to be carefully husbanded ]The most important matter at hand is the islamization of Europe, not the fate of the assorted Muslims in Iraq, nor that absurd "Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations" notion.

Getting out of Iraq (and Afghanistan), using local proxies, supplied with weaponry at times, and making sure that there is as little flow of money and weaponry to the side or sides that appear most dangerous to Infidel interests, while concentrating on Islamic infiltration into the countries of the West, and into the institutions (the E.U., the U.N.) that have such exaggerated and undeserved influence on public opinion, are more important.

Posted by: Hugh at May 11, 2006 2:57 PM

the most logical way to stop the muslim terrorist, is to have islam labelled a terrorist organization, take down all mosques, and books about islam may be used as a reference to what cults look like. but that would make too much sense, and we would hear the howls from liberal sympathizers and muslims alike. iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plane sould be targeted and taken down, they can keep a tracer on him, and just blow up the criminal! just like how the Israelies find and destroy hammas leaders!

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

President Bush needs to send a letter back with a request: open up Iran to democracy with the right to believe or to believe in Allah. He could highlight the many web sites of Iranians that think Islam is false, and ask Ahmadinejad to allow these people open access to voice their opinions in the public.

Posted by: DTB at May 11, 2006 3:04 PM

Two other analysts seem to have said the same (link below) though I doubt anyone is as consistently right as Robert.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50146

That piece also appositely quotes Ahmadinejad saying, "We must prepare ourselves to rule the world".

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 11, 2006 3:09 PM

There's no doubt Ahmadinejad's the real deal. He believes he's on a religious mission - he's not a politician in the conventional sense at all. Even the ayatollahs who preceded him had their pragmatic side. Ahmadinejad doesn't attempt to hide his beliefs; he's entirely transparent.

What I find utterly astounding in the politicians, not only of the West, but of Russia and China too, is their apparent belief that Iran can be somehow talked out of its nuclear ambitions. That good old diplomatic skills can save the day. I do watch their faces closely, Rice, Blair, Straw et al, and blow me, they do actually seem to believe the nonsense coming out of their mouths.

We see it too in their attitudes to Hamas. The idea that these people will eventually renounce their intention to destroy Israel, and opt to take their place in the civilised world. 'Well, Gerry Adams came round eventually, so will these chaps...'

No. They won't. Did Arafat? No - and he was head of a nominally secular movement. Hamas' manifesto derives from the Koran. And the Koran can't be updated in order to become more 'relevant' to the modern world.

When has the gap between we, the people, and our so-called leaders ever been wider?

Posted by: Effractor at May 11, 2006 3:17 PM

I am grateful to Hugh for taking my views seriously and answering them - from his point of view - as though they mattered, and not with the brute sarcasm of some. I have some real-life reasons why I cannot answer at the length the matter requires, but I wonder whether, if I submitted an essay to Robert, it might be published? If not, maybe my views will come out in dribs and drabs in future debates.

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 3:21 PM

elad wrote:

When the next attack happens we need to attack without restraint. We can't be worried about world opinion or the UN

---

Exactly correct.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 3:22 PM

"The regional superpower Israel is threatening to attack it [Iran], the U.S. is threatening to attack it. These threats alone are outright violations international law and of the U.N. charter. Iran is in difficulty. Iran has been trying for some years to negotiate settlement but the U.S. just refuses."

noam chomsky while visiting hezbollah leader hassan nasrallah today.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 3:23 PM

Perhaps President Bush should send a reply, just as General McAuliffe sent to the Germans near Bastogne, "Nuts!"
...then again, sending that message would go against Sec Rice, and her "multipolarity" agenda.
It has been 1,701 days without another major terrorist attack in the United States. Knowing the symbolism surrounding a "Jihad", I ask, "What happened in the year '1776'?"
...just a thought.

Posted by: SickBoy at May 11, 2006 3:24 PM

OT,but i was offline for a couple days,when i called the phone company(the operator was actually IN America)i got to talkin with her,wasnt talkin about jihadwatch.So now i'm back on,and i brought someone else in too the fold.

Posted by: patriot4 at May 11, 2006 3:27 PM

WAS talkin about jihadwatch,sorry

Posted by: patriot4 at May 11, 2006 3:29 PM

I don't think Laura would take kindly to sexual mutilation, sadistic beatings, forced to wear garbage bags, continually in fear of being murdered by male relatives..........

Posted by: moderationist at May 11, 2006 3:31 PM

Foehammer: the UN Charter allows war in self-defence and against wanton attack. If a sovereign government, such as Iran, assaults the US, the US has the right to take whatever measure the "laws and customs of war" allow, up to and including nuclear bombardment, land invasion, and destruction of the existing government. There would, in that case, be no need for any UN intervention. The problem with 9-11 was that no sovereign government could immediately be connected to the outrage - it was a war without a legitimate enemy.

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 3:37 PM

Asmerica's message to "President" Ahmadinejad:

We will use your "invitation" letter for toilet paper. And nothing else.

Have a rotten life, you pig.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 11, 2006 3:37 PM

Reply suggestion for the White House:

Write a letter to Ahmadinijad and invite HIM to embrace the Baha'i religion. Then state that if he does not, Allah will be very angry with him and he will be barred from the brothel on the other side of the moon.

On a related subject, what would happen if someone claimed to be the Mahdi and then a U.S. Marine scout/sniper team smoked the guy? Would it permanently delay the Day of Judgement? Whose fault would that be? Would Allah be angry enough to allow the USAF, as Curtis Lemay once remarked, to bomb Mecca, Medina and Qom into the stone age? Methinks there would be a lot of explaining to do at the Front Desk as to why they provoked the Great Satan before Allah was ready for the Big Show.

This could get messy. I would suggest that they need to convene a fatwa convention to ponder the consequences of House of Representatives Member Tom Tancredo's idea to have a public dialogue on whether we should consider making Mecca, Medina, Qom, et al, One with the Universe.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at May 11, 2006 3:39 PM

...provided we do not fall prey to "dying children" and "crying wives" stuff.
Posted by: arjun.sevak

I couldn't agree more. I am not saying deliberately target women and children, but if we are going to go to war, lets go to war. Our military is not a police force (or peace corp)

Unfortunately our military is being used as a police force in Iraq and look at the results. We have done this before, you would think we would have learned our leason.

Lets use the tools we have and "git her done".

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at May 11, 2006 3:42 PM

Paolo-- send any submission to Robert.

Posted by: Hugh at May 11, 2006 3:44 PM

Paolo wrote:

The problem with 9-11 was that no sovereign government could immediately be connected to the outrage - it was a war without a legitimate enemy.

---

And this has been the strategy of Islamic states ever since the Caliphate was diminished and then finally removed. Make no mistake about it, but the "terror" we talk about is nothing less than the invisible arm of the underground workings of nations like Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Iraq, et al.

This is why the recent revelations are so fascinating. I am not sure if this Thug in Iran is completely mad to be actually giving the United States a clear cut reason to go to all-out war, which is something we actually thrive on in U.S. history, so this would be a mistake in judgement on his part -- or -- he has something up his sleeve.

That's the part that worries me most. I have been warning for a couple of years now that we will be attacked when and where and how Al Qaeda wants. If Iran is indeed setting up the world for a global conflict, I believe that the only logical conclusion is that we are about to be witness to new attacks here on American soil soon.

Would anyone else like to jump in on that statement?

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 3:49 PM

And taking a queue from some of Hugh's statements above, I'd just like to restate what I just posted on my own blog:

Why is Robert Spencer not on the White House payroll?

(Probably the same reason that the CIA and NSA never bothered to interview me for a job, but I'm giving away the answer. LOL.)

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 3:52 PM

I read the article at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50146

and can't really distinguish Ahmadinejad from any other cult leader based on what he says and how he says it. He's using 'the second coming' to try and rally together a large nation. I don't think it will scale up well - the technique might work for the likes of Jim Jones in Guyana, but I don't think it will work with a nation of 10s of millions.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 3:55 PM

paolo:

Most if not all all Muslims are members of a political state/entity that lacks borders as defined by the UN --this state is known in Islam as the umma. The Constitution of the umma is the Quran. The capital of the umma is Saudi Arabia but in the future may be switched to another location in the event of the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate.

Islam technically is the "government" of the umma. Mosques act as government administration buildings and as arsenals for Islam and the umma.

THAT IS THE ENEMY: Islam. IT IS DEFINITELY A LEGITIMATE ENEMY AND IT IS A STATE...ONLY NOT THE TYPE SPECIFIED IN BY THE UN CHARTER BUT IT STILL IS THE STATE THAT ATTACKED THE US ON 9-11.

The fact that the UN leaves all states unprotected by Islamic terrorism through the loophole you have defined should be held against the UN not the United States for the reason that this loophole leaves civilian populations throughout the world vulnerable to potentially repeated terror attacks and mass casualties and without recourse to defend themselves.

One of the reasons for the rise in Islamic terrorism across the globe recently is that Islam's political leaders are fully aware of this loophole and take maximum advantage of it. This same loophole has existed since Muhammed's time and has helped Islam massacre hundreds of milions of innocent civilians and eliminate at least eight major civilizations in the process.

If you take the side of the UN on this loophole issue you are unwittingly aiding and abetting the jihadist warriors in their bloody conquest to transform the globe into an Islamic dictatorship ruled by the re-established Caliphate.

Please think carefully about what I have said here.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 11, 2006 3:58 PM

Foehammer,

An attack on U.S. soil wouldn't surprise me in the least. But would Iran necessarily do that? Mightn't Iran just as likely attack American interests abroad?

It's also peculiar that Ahmadinejad said awhile ago that Iran would "attack Israel in response to any 'evil' act by the United States". He seems to conflate the U.S. and Israel, and I wonder if, in his mind, it would be reasonable to send the "call to Islam" to the US but launch the attack on Israel. Or is that a fanciful idea?

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 11, 2006 4:02 PM

the technique might work for the likes of Jim Jones in Guyana, but I don't think it will work with a nation of 10s of millions.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at M ..why the world is in grave danger.people who refuse to understand the evil of islam.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 4:02 PM

Yojimbo:

I'm eluding to an attack that will not immediately be connected to any Islamic government and considering the air of denial in the U.N., any attack upon the U.S. will be looked upon as simply another "act of terror" and have nothing to do with "the Religion of Peace" or Iran. We will be pressed to act "with restraint." And then, depending on what the outcome of such attacks upon us were, Iran might act. Or, they might just use these methods to buy them more time.

You see, the goal here for Iran is clear: to attain nuclear weapons. And once they have those, they will have a chip to barter with: global extortion. And failing that, they will be putting these weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda (assuming that Bin Laden does not already have such technology) and then we are really going to pay for our timidity and stupid restraint and slow-witted leadership.

Death by 1,000 cuts.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 4:10 PM

Storage Manager:

I think I do understand the evil of Islam, but what I'm saying is the 'rally around the Qur'an' cries and the idea that all the Persian kitties and puppies in Iran are going to march behind the guidance of the Supreme Leader Ahmadinejad strikes me as absurd and delusional. Which is a good thing for the rest of the world.

Islam is evil, no doubt. Islam is dangerous, no doubt, but this is the wrong venue for it to do its evil. It has come out into the light. The nation of Islam needs to hide among the other peoples and pick us apart. This is what it excels at. It is making a mistake her. Clearly defining itself within a piece of real estate is a monumental mistake when going belly-to-belly with a belly-cose U.S. It's going to go down hard and to add insult to injury, the Persian kids are going to help US out when the shooting starts.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 4:11 PM

Pythagoras - I do not deny anything you said. I was simply telling Foehammer that if Ahmaniacnutter is crazy enough to go for open war - as he seems to be preparing to do - then the UN can and will do nothing to save him. He would have placed himself beyond rescue by "the international community". Incidentally, have you ever noticed what an ugly and meaningless expression that is?

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 4:16 PM

Store manager:

What sort of store do you manage may I ask?

Your attempts to whitewash Iran, Islam, and Noam Chomsky here are the height of ignorance.

First of all, encase you didn't know, Iran is the founder of the terrorist organization known as Hizbollah (which is the world's largest terrorist network). Hizbollah has massacred thousands of non-islamic civilians across the globe possibly including the Indian subcontinent. Iran also provides logistical support and training for the Janjaweed terrorists rampantly massacring Sudanese citizens in an Islamic jihad war against non-Muslims. The people of Sudan were invaded by islam and never asked to become Muslims. Islam is lterally being shoved down the throats of these people. Iran is the force behind the present Islamic Sudanese government and many other such wars across Africa--wars that have claimed many millions of lives.

As for the present Israel-Iran standoff, wasn't it the newly-elected Iranian president Ahmadinejad who threatened to attack Israel and "wipe it off the face of the earth" FIRST?????When someone threatens to do a thing like this, it is not going into attack mode to take such a threat seriously and pre-empt it. Israel and the United States are behaving defensively here. It is Iran that provoked the situation and it is Iran that must face up to the consequences of its action. Not Israel. Not the United States.

If someone threatened to firebomb my house because they didn't like me I would certainly take defensive action to stop such a thing. But, you mean you would blame yourself and let them GO AHEAD AND FIREBOMB YOUR HOUSE????? I don't think so.

As for Chomsky--if he went to Iran to discuss the Israel-Iran standoff with the Iranian government that PROVES he's an idiot (bigger than even I thought). Why? Because Muslims are PROHIBITED BY THE KURAN TO DEAL HONESTLY WITH non-MUSLIMS. THIS MAN CAN not BE TOLD THE TRUTH BY THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION (ISLAM) FORBIDS THEM FROM DOING SO!!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at May 11, 2006 4:16 PM

I also agree completely with what A_Plague_on_Both_Houses just stated. I have been a longtime supporter of a free Persia. I have worked with Iranians here in the United States. I have also talked to my share on random meetings. There are many in Iran that despise the mullahs. Whenever we face a fight in an Islamic nation, we will encounter "insurgents" but we know why and we know what they should be really called -- jihadists! So, don't buy into the stupid statements of our press. It is not because our military "underestimated" any situation nearly as much as it is that the world press and the dhimmi governments can not possibly admit that such "insurgency" is due directly to the teachings of the Quran. However, that being said, the non-Muslim population and the Apostates in waiting, are so numerous, that any war in Iran will be nothing like Iraq.

Hopefully the CIA is already making necessary preparations to safeguard as many of the secularist Persians as possible in the event that we begin air attacks. And on the other side of that, organizing them to make the regime change that Persians desire and that the world would do well by.

It is time that Islam started giving back some of the nations it stole, afterall. Sharia might be on the books in Iraq, but in Iran, students smuggle U.S. Constitutions around in their back jean pockets and openly pine about the Founding Fathers. In Iran we truly have a chance to not just remove a maniac and his mullahs from power, we have an opportunity to overturn Islamic control altogether!

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 4:23 PM

part of the safety manual for internet critics of islam.mohammad abdullah..Here are some simple steps, which will ensure that you can continue to access sites blocked by your government in safety, and some steps to keep your data encrypted.

1. Never use your real name instead use a Pseudonym or pen name in any written communication to anyone concerning Islam.

2. Don’t argue with other muslims especially in public. These discussions will seldom persuade one to change their faith overnight, which has been indoctrinated into them since childhood. Instead write (email) to them anonymously. Make sure you don’t give away your identity. You can also put your thoughts down on paper more logically. I have had childhood friends turn against me in an instant, they just can't cope with the truth about Islam!

If you live in a muslim country be careful of how you use the internet here are some tips that will ensure that the government or your ISP will not be able to spy on your internet activities:

a. Use the firefox browser at http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ this has fewer bugs and backdoors in it…

b. Avoid accessing Islam sensitive sites at the office. Someone could look over your shoulder.

When surfing websites use a free proxy like www.guardster.com or https://proxify.com/ or http://www.the-cloak.com/login.html remember to check yes to all options. This encrypts all inbound and outbound communication and also hides the sites that you visit so people can’t see what information you receive or where you are getting it from.

Use hushmail at http://www.hushmail.com/ this encrypts the traffic between your computer and their server in this way the ISP cannot see what you are sending.

needed because islam is peace.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 4:23 PM

store mangager:

I missed the bottom notation in your post.PLEASE EXCUSE MY BLUNDER!!! Today I am the moron!!!!!
(If you are annoyed at me, I could genuinely understand it).

It is CHOMSKY WHO I WAS REALLY AFTER. What a moron this guy is!!!!

I think this guy has something organically degenerating in his cranium. Chomsky's wires are definitely disconnected.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 11, 2006 4:23 PM

no worries,i behead no one.lol

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 4:25 PM

... in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta.

How fitting that the thug in chief should say this in Jakarta.

Indonesia did not have any valid claim to it [East Timor], but President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who were visiting Jakarta, nevertheless approved the Indonesian invasion of the former Portuguese on December 7, 1975. They only asked that the attack be delayed until after their departure. ...

President Suharto’s carnage was on a scale worthy of Pol Pot. By 1989, Amnesty International estimated that Indonesia had murdered 200,000 East Timorese out of a population of 600,000-700,000.

They slaughtered a third of the population. This is comparable to the Nazis in the Ukraine. I simply never knew.

I knew there had been some fighting there, and I knew Kissinger held some responsibility - I'd read Norman Lewis's An Empire of the East: Travels in Indonesia - but I don't think Lewis said it was a jihad nor that it was on this inhuman scale.

And where was the New Durranty Times?

Through two and a half subsequent years of that campaign - leading to the death of about a third of the population - The New York Times ran only two brief stories about “the problem of East Timorese refugees.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4766

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 11, 2006 4:29 PM

My daughters have friends with Persian ancestry... They always say 'Persian'. We've taken one of the girls to the lake for a weekend of fun. Her father is on my church volley ball team... takes Communion on Sundays... I don't ask him if he's an apostate because I know he would be considered so back in his birthplace.

They are people that I like. God bless them. They are Roman Catholic and practice it. He drinks beer at parties. We talk about the small things and the good things in life. I know there are more good people where he came from - but I also understand we have to take this opportunity with Iran and take the mullahs out.

The true believers are going to force the issue. We can make the world a much safer place after this comes to a head. Many Persians are going to help us. It needs to be done.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 4:39 PM

I accept this letter to be a declaration (of his intention) to make war against Israel and America, but can anyone explain to me how this might come about? Would this involve a pre-emptive strike on Israel with simultaneous attacks in the American homeland or a more calculated approach in which the US gets dragged into a protracted ground based conflict on Iranian soil. If it's the former then it will involve nuclear weapons. To win a nuclear battle you must have a sufficient stockpile of these weapons to succeed. We've all seen the footage of the 15 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The devastation of the blast and the resulting casualties being immense, but it only affected a relatively small area of the country. To win a nuclear war you would have to destroy either the enemy's capability to conduct a war or get the enemy to surrender or capitulate by threat of annihilation. I don't believe Iran and Pakistan have this capability. In my view Iran will use it's guile to entrap you Americans into a protracted conflict in the Gulf region using it's favoured method of guerrilla tactics. With an already overstretched force in Iraq and Iran's ability to restrict oil to the market, will attempt to make you reconsider your presence in this area and break your ties with Israel.
I would like to hear anyone else's opinion on possible scenario's. .

Posted by: western infidel at May 11, 2006 4:41 PM

Foehammer - u rock dude... I went over and watched your clip on the Brooklyn Islamic Thinkers some time ago. The world needs more people like you.

I salute the hammer within you.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 4:45 PM

i am a christiam,my family were christians.if someone told me not to follow the bible,i would think they were crazy.now fast forward to iran who await the 12th imam,tell them they are wrong.get the point...they are waiting for the hidden imam,they dont care what people in the west think.until we understand they dont think like we do....we are toast.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 4:45 PM

Hugh congratulated Robert

Why did none of those assorted pundits and experts interpret it as Ahmadinejad now tells us, plainly, it was meant to be interpreted?

This is the main reason that I enjoy JW/DW: It Makes Sense Now. Before 9/11, I followed the Bamiyan statue destruction and the assasination of Mahmood, and of course the decades of Israeli history, but it didn't make any sense. The Taliban just seemed "crazy" to be focusing their energy on destroying those statues when the Afghan people were so destitute and hungry.

But now 5 years later, after learning of the centuries-old doctrines that are still driving the Islamic world, the backdrop that was missing from all the MSM reports is in place, and seemingly irrational behaviour is understood now.

Posted by: special_guest at May 11, 2006 4:52 PM

Those in power do not rule for ever

Like any good Moslem, President Mahmoud has an eschatological frame of mind.

…history will judge our presidencies

No, history will judge Islam one of two ways:

1) If global Sharia is attained, history will be fake and Mohammed will be judged kindly

2) If civilization survives (i.e., if Islam is completely eradicated from the planet), the surviving humans will judge Islam to have been a kind of mental cancer of such vile magnitude that such a thing can never, ever, be let to emerge again in the minds of mankind.

How can US global policy be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus and other prophets of the monotheistic religions?

What’s this big-ass hangup Moslems have with polytheism? Any Hindus in here care to comment? I don’t get it.

…have countries attacked, lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and, on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, for example, set the entire village ablaze?

International relations must be reformed whereby nations (i.e., Moslem nations) that tacitly let major threats operate under their noses are to be held fully responsible for that threat.

Or because of the possibility of WMD in a country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, ok blah blah blaaaah

President Mahmoud must be a Democrat, or a Marxist or whatever. The two whoppers above rank right up there with the one about how the Miami Police were deployed to restrain mobs of vote-hungry African-Americans from getting at the polls late in the afternoon on November 7, 2004.

Fictive. Reality. Go. Islam. Global. Sharia. Bull. Sheet. Crap. U. Lous.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 11, 2006 4:55 PM

Amir Taheri thought that Ahmadinejad would back off for awhile and wait Bush out, on the grounds that he thinks the weapons would take that long to be ready and the on odds that the next president might be a softer touch for Iran. But who really knows how close Iran is to getting them? And Ahmadinejad doesn't look like he's backing off at the moment to me.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 11, 2006 4:55 PM

Storage manager -

I do understand that the true believers exist in a closed circle of irrational beliefs. I understand that they will not listen to our words.

But I also know that many people will help us once the music starts.We must make sure the mullahs go. We must make sure they are delegitimized, humiliated, dragged through the mud and so on in view of al-Jazeera and the rest of the world. We must have regime change and this must be done in a way to start the paradigm change.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 11, 2006 4:59 PM

storagemanager: Very good advice for everyone you just gave -- http://www.the-cloak.com works easy as pie. I highly recommend it, though you would have to pay for it in order to post on sites where your personal security might be in question(i.e. jihadist forums), it is free for 'surfing.'

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses: Thanks. I just do what comes naturally -- I'm a rabble-rouser. ;)

My two most poignant blogs of late, for anyone interested:

http://www.foehammer.net/2006/05/war-poster-islam-is-enemy.html

http://www.foehammer.net/2006/05/savage-burkman-pulling-no-punches-with.html

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 5:04 PM

Anyone who has read the koran, the hadiths of bukhari and the sirah knew that the letter was to invite the Prez to islam and, in reality, a declaration of war as he knew the Prez wouldn't agree. There will be attacks on Israel and attacks on our presence in other mideast countries and attacks in the U.S. Possibly coordinated, possibly not, as jihadis will go on a tear all by themselves like the UNC suv terrorist and the DC snipers. But we will be attacked, you betcha we will. Look for dates that are meaningful to them and watch for increased internet activity on their websites.

The good news is that they are so predictable. The mobot mind is a box filled with hate and war and they can't think any other way. Once the West understands their intent and doctrine and we have the mind of war, they're doomed. I hope I live to see that day.

Posted by: the poetess at May 11, 2006 5:08 PM

a note to sean hannity,bill o'reilly and larry elder.please talk about the letter from president ahmadinejad to president bush.on the rush limbaugh show today guest host roger hedgecock did a good job of telling the american people about the danger of islam.you are doing us a diservice by trying to ignore the truth.ahmadinejads letter was a warning.please read posts at www.jihadwatch.org...thank you

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 5:10 PM

It seems to me that if this nut declares war on us then we should just declare war right back at them. Treat the "radicals" like we did the japs with internment and destruction. We don't have to use nukes. We will save those for Doomsday.

Posted by: Hillbilly at May 11, 2006 5:17 PM

Foehammer, thanks for the link to Savage's interview with Jack Burkman.

Posted by: the poetess at May 11, 2006 5:26 PM

poetess:

Glad to be of service. I find when I need a morale boost, I can just go give that interview a re-listen and remember that I'm not alone.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 5:33 PM

I also beleive we will see a similar letter being directed at Tony Blair in the UK.

The only thing I want this time is for Bush to NOT TO GO TO THE UN before he attacks. The UN is not with us, Russia and China will not be with us, they are withholding their vote for $$$.

Hit'em hard and hit'em fast.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 11, 2006 5:35 PM

BTW, does anyone have an interest in me posting MP3 formats of such interviews for people to put on their iPODS and other portables? It just dawned on me that such portable means of bringing reality to the people might be a damn good weapon-of-words in this war.

I'll have to install the software to encode streams to the right format, but I'm handy like that.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 5:36 PM

Letter or no letter, invitation or no invitation this war started a long time ago. The sad part is only one side knew it. I want to see us nuke them but know we will not. We can win it without them, it just costs more. More equipment, money, time and the most painful-troops. I can only repeat the words others have used "lets roll".

Posted by: Ronin at May 11, 2006 5:40 PM

According to the Bible, the watchman’s duty is to warn those who are in the way of oncoming danger - especially if that danger is being bought on by their own action or inaction. The watchman is not responsible for whether or how those warned responds. If he remains silent, however, help will come from another quarter, but God will hold him responsible for failing in his duty.

Those unable to accept that may hear this:

Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 5:52 PM

Today's editorial in the New York Sun translates the (Arabic?) phrase at the end of the letter to President Bush thus: "Peace only unto those who follow the true path." The Sun editorial points out that

Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush.

The editorial concludes that the letter is a declaration of war, and that we'd better pay attention. Spencer was right on target.

Posted by: traeh at May 11, 2006 5:55 PM

The letter was probably meant more for his fellow countrymen not ours. Muslims always try and show a historical link to justify present actions.

Posted by: Ronin at May 11, 2006 6:01 PM

Ironman Hondo, how precise is your comment:

Our politicains are about as brain dead as a paperweight, when it comes to Islam.

===========

I'll remember that!

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 6:06 PM

By the way, 'monotheism' precludes the Christian belief in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Those who believe God has 'partners' are polytheists.

Hence, Christians must abandon their belief in the Son of God in order to be acceptable.

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 6:11 PM

I'm always in amazement that Muslims can kill children and they are considered hero's. I guess if anyone is considering becoming a closed minded murderer the best thing to do is to accept islam and have fun killing innocent people.

Posted by: Tsc at May 11, 2006 6:11 PM

traeh quoted

Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered.

Does anyone know offhand how much time there was between Mohammad sending the letters and open war beginning? Are we talking months, weeks, days?

I see that Mohammad sent the "Letters of Invitation to Join Islam" in Feb. 628 to July 629. He was doing alot of conquering and fighting in that period.

Posted by: special_guest at May 11, 2006 6:19 PM

Kay said

Christians must abandon their belief in the Son of God in order to be acceptable.

But of course in Mohammad's view Jesus was not the Son of God, but just one of hundreds of prophets. I'm willing to bet that distinction is not made clearly during the "interfaith dialogues" that are so popular. Jesus' message ("love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "treat others as you would be treated", etc.) was corrupted, He misunderstood Allah. Only Mohammad got it right, with "smite at their necks", "terrorize them", "kill them wherever you find them", etc.

Posted by: special_guest at May 11, 2006 6:26 PM

Foehammer

You already make a substantial contribution to this war with your excellent webpage, but if you could augment it with MP3 down loads of relevent interviews that would be awesome.

I just wish Savage would podcast his shows, he has been very vocal in highlighting the Jihad. I even heard Robert on the show not so long ago.

I also think Robert should post up all his interviews in downloadable format as well. It will help get the word out.

Posted by: km at May 11, 2006 6:38 PM

As a general rule veterans tend to be anti war, especially the trigger pullers. You rarely see a WWII, Vietnam, Somalia or any other vet saying, “give me another crack at um”. That said, I am for this one. We are already at war. Our mistake has always been limiting it and not realizing we were fighting it. We like to say the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. The war is with islams ideology of hate. They all claim to be one large nation. If they do not recognize geographic boundaries why do we? They like to claim an attack on one is an attack on all (unless muslims do it). Give them what they want. Attack them all with as many variants of war as we can. This fight will lead to a kinetic conclusion but until then we have truth on our side. The message is spreading, islam feels the pinch. When they complain we should intensify our efforts and not back down. We should fund all missionaries, encourage them to convert. Personally, I could careless if they worship weeds and broadleaf grasses; anything is an improvement over islam. Arm the oppressed minorities in islamic countries. Stop adjusting our laws to show sensibilities. We gate our communities and leave our borders open, madness. Stop adjusting your view when muslims pass you. Look them in the eye; let them know you are onto them. I have yet to have one brave enough to comment about any of my t-shirts, they are a cowardly lot. I do not encourage any of you to push your luck unless you are big enough to handle a problem if it develops (or you are packing). You can still let them know quietly you are onto their game. I suspect many are muslim out of fear and would leave the cult if it were safe to do so but I can’t tell them apart and I have seen my share. I don’t know why iran feels they can win, obviously they have something up their baggy sleeves. It doesn’t matter, it is our way or the highway. I’d rather be dead than see one single member of my family except islam, forcibly or not, the outcome is the same.

Posted by: Ronin at May 11, 2006 6:51 PM

Does Ahmadinehad, as President of Iran, have commander-in-chief style legal authority to nuke Israel or the U.S.? Iran is an oligarchy, not one-man rule, so would he have to get the assent of the supreme Ayatollah of Iran, among others, in order to proceed?

To start an attack, the main powers of the Iranian goverment would have to be suicidal, or deluded about their military capacities. Unfortunately, either or both seem possible.

Even if Ahmadinejad doesn't have Iranian legal authority to initiate war, couldn't he control a rogue government or agency within the larger rogue government of Iran? And so proceed to war without full Iranian legal authority?

Posted by: traeh at May 11, 2006 6:56 PM

The good news is that they are so predictable, said by the poetess, what dates should we be looking for now?

Posted by: Lulu at May 11, 2006 6:56 PM

iran has been at war with america since 1979,in 1983 the marines had 241 killed.at some point washington may notice,we can hope.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 7:02 PM

Lulu, I'd love to know the answer to that but I have no clue. My best guess is they will adjust their plans based on iraq. If we stay they will try and wear us down. We leave they will go nuts to show how they (the muslim world scared us away) we take out the nukes and we get a rash or terrorism (along with the rest of the world). No matter how it plays out we will be hurt. They will pay a much bigger price than we will so..let the fun begin. I am still young enough I'd get called back to active duty and once again, I'll go. This time the gloves had best come off.

Posted by: Ronin at May 11, 2006 7:04 PM

What’s this big-ass hangup Moslems have with polytheism? Any Hindus in here care to comment? I don’t get it.

============================

The big hang up is that if you think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in human flesh come to visit the earth, then you are a polytheist.

Muslims say that 'Christian' are people of the Book, but ONLY those who do NOT believe that Jesus is divine. To do so is to be a polytheist.
That is unacceptable and worthy of death.

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 7:14 PM

... and FYI, the Bible states that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is God come in human flesh is 'Antichrist'.

So, I don't see much room for interfaith harmony here!

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 7:19 PM

from www.threatswatch.org What I would add to Charlie’s assessment is simply that the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir has nothing to do with whether Hizb ut-Tahrir’s reestablishment of the Caliphate is realistic or not. Rather, the threat has everything to do with their firm belief in its necessity and deep conviction to make it so.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 7:21 PM

the threat has everything to do with their firm belief in its necessity and deep conviction to make it so.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 7:26 PM

What’s this big-ass hangup Moslems have with polytheism? Any Hindus in here care to comment? I don’t get it.

Kay

This is something only Mohammed could have answered. And he's probably turned into crude oil under Medina by now.

Nothing we Hindus can clue you in about. We compete with Jews for the title of most hated religion by Muslims. I'll wager the only reason they don't brand us the most hated is that there are close to 1 billion nominal Hindus, as opposed to just 10 million Jews.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 11, 2006 7:33 PM

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the mamous president.

mahmoud ahmadinejad also said his country was willing to negotiate, but that the United States first must drop its "bad attitude."
++++++++++++++++++++++

At an force base the other day, several of the nukes were label "BAD ATTITUDE","BAD ATTITUDE 2", "PMS ATTITUDE" AND "MOMMA'S BAD ATTITUDE".

Don't you agree with mahmoud that we must meet his demands and drop our "BAD ATTITUDES" for him across iran and then negotiate.

Don't you think this would be positive reponse???

Posted by: Texican at May 11, 2006 7:46 PM

Yeah well, Skald I did a bit of research on the 'Dajjal' who is the one that the 'Mahdi' is supposed to fight (among others). Of course, he is the personification of evil to the Muslims.

The Dajjal is a 'Trinitarian' - one who believes in the Christian Trinity - God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is possibly the reason why they hate 'polytheism' so much.

Why do they hate Hindus so much? Maybe a little research on the Satanic Verses would answer that question! Have fun!

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 7:50 PM

mahmoud ahmadinejad also said his country was willing to negotiate, but that the United States first must drop its "bad attitude."
++++++++++++++++++++++

At an force base the other day, several of the nukes were label "BAD ATTITUDE","BAD ATTITUDE 2", "PMS ATTITUDE" AND "MOMMA'S BAD ATTITUDE".

Don't you agree with mahmoud that we must meet his demands and drop our "BAD ATTITUDES" for him across iran and then negotiate.

Don't you think this would be positive reponse???

=============================

That is hysterical!

Posted by: Kay at May 11, 2006 7:54 PM

With Saddam on trial, Kadhaffi spayed and bin Laden afraid to show his face, Ahmadinejad wants to be the new poster boy for Islam and the next Caliph. He is getting creds on the Muslim street by appearing to stand up to the West and "defend the faith". It's all about keeping up appearances. Saddam did the same thing before the war and we all know what happpened there, right kids? Stay tuned. History is about to repeat itself.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 11, 2006 7:57 PM

There are those comments that keep insisting that we are to militarily taxed by being in Iraq, and Afghanistan. But are we really? Think about it; no General ever wants to give up land to fight an enemy if the established positions brings him strategically closer to his targets.

Clearly Iran, and Afghanistan have to make the mad Mullahs very nervous by the mere fact that American and coalition troops can both be found on west and east sides of Iran. War has tremendous costs to it and yet we have not been asked to make sacrifices like our parents and grandparents had to during WWII. The costs would be much greater if we give up ground in Iraq as well as Afghanistan if we have a war with Iran.

Keep in mind also that Turkey; though 98 Pct Muslim resides on the Northeast end of Iran and is a member of NATO and given to desires to join the EU. The big question might be just how much true sympathy for Iran may come from the umma?

What will be the Position of Pakistan, India, and Saudia Arabia, as well as Jordan if a major fight of serious proportions is brought against Iran?

Posted by: Mackie at May 11, 2006 8:04 PM

One of the things Mohammed raved against was Idol worship, which symbolized polytheism. His followers didn't witness much of that when they were overrunning Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian territory. However, once they arrived at Sind, they did get to witness idol worship. Given Mohammed's parting instructions, they went on to take on the Hindu rulers of Sind, ended the local Hindu dynasty and occupied Sind for a while.

The Arabs never made any further inroads - they were militarily trounced by the Rajputs, but other Muslim aggressors in India - Turks and Afghans - performed a royal bloodbath starting in 1000AD and going right up to 1761.

Back to this topic. Either the president can, as I mentioned above, take Ahmadinejad's suggestion. Or if he doesn't know of Robert and listen to him, he can at least listen to Michael Medved, Rodger Hedgecock or other conservatives who have read what Robert has read, and declare war. If he doesn't have the balls to do that, don't say anything about it. All this handwringing at the UN is getting tiresome - it's turning out to be a bigger failure than the League of Nations ever was (probably because the Germans and the Japanese just walked out of it, unlike the Iraqis and the Iranians).

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 11, 2006 8:06 PM

Hal Lindsey also makes Roberts arguments in WORLDNET DAILEY regarding the Ahmadinejad offer to President Bush to join Islam.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50152

Posted by: Mackie at May 11, 2006 8:31 PM

An ironic twist concerning Islam's historically well-documented vilification of polytheism: Muhammed chose al-lah to stand in for 366 Arab idols (at least these idols were in use by the Arabs at that time--the Philistines were using many of the same idols many centuries BC) that were kept inside the Kaba. Thus Islam is subliminally polytheistic while condemning other religions for this same alleged (and dreaded) offense of polytheism.

Islam never could get its facts straight or else it is a major cover-up (which is entirely possible). There are enough Babylonian and Sumerian elements contained in Islam to legitimately consider it a continuation of Mesopotamian religious beliefs which includes worship of the Babylonian moon-god, Marduk. The Arabian Peninsula was once a territorial possession of the Babylonian Empire I might add. I have long suspected that somewhere in the Middle East is another 'sacred' text not shown to the outside world that explains what the real story is.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 11, 2006 9:02 PM

km:

The more I think about it, the more I realize that MP3s/podcasting is a tool that's not used enough by sites dealing with anti-jihad and I agree with you, of course. I just have to figure out a formatting problem and I should be able to bring MP3s to my site for download every so often. The main thing will be that in that format, portables can be used to store them almost indefinitely. A 30 gig iPod? The mp3 size of a 15 minute interview will be less than 1 meg! This means that when anyone that wants to make a point with people and needs some proof that's easy to bring to bear in a few seconds, there it will be.

In this effort, if anyone ever hears something worth capturing and can point me in its direction (the same goes for my Jihad Map), please feel free to email me: foehammer@(remove)foehammer.net

Posted by: Foehammer at May 11, 2006 9:17 PM

foehammer nice website.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 9:30 PM

Here is yesterday's front page headline from the Chicago Tribune:
Let's talk, Iranians tell Bush
Possible overture from Tehran on nukes receives chilly reception

Gag! The Tribune is Midwest Dhimmi #1. "Oh that warmongering Bush! He won't even stop to consider their offer" (They don't even mention the M word or the I word anywhere in the article.)

Posted by: Malta_1565 at May 11, 2006 9:35 PM

where it all started.....and cush begat nimrod:he began to be a mighty one in the earth.gen 10:8 he was a mighty hunter before the lord:wherefore it is said, even as nimrod the mighty hunter before the lord.gen 10:9 and the beginning of his kingdom was babel,and erech,and accad and calneh,in the land of shinar(iraq)gen 10:10 out of that land went forth asshur,and builded ninveh,and the city rehoboth,and calah.gen 10:11 out of that world was abraham called to god...and gave birth to jews,christians and islam...the rest so to speak is history.babylon the beginning of it all.lol

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 9:42 PM

An old Christian lady died and went to Heaven. While in line she heard a dreadful scream. "What was that?" she asked St. Peter. "Angels have wings so she is getting pierced for them." he
replied. A few minutes later she heard another scream. "Just getting pierced for the halo" said St. Peter. The old lady said "I'm not going thru that. Send me to Hell." St. Peter said "They will just rape and sodomize you there!" The old lady replied "At least the holes are already there for that"

I guess the Baptists will be issuing a death warrant on me now.

Posted by: Hillbilly at May 11, 2006 9:46 PM

Hold on for a minute everybody - There are still some Zoroastrian Persians still around, although most of them are probably in the US. I use the word Persian to distinguish them from Mohammedan Iranians. One Persian I knew reminded us several times that he was not a f**king Arab. He really did not like his Mohammedan countrymen. Wouldn't it be nice to see Zoroastrianism once again the predominate religion in Persia?

Anyway, I suggest we all start carrying a gun and wearing brown pants.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 11, 2006 9:48 PM

so many guns...cant make up my mind...maybe this one...no...that one.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 10:00 PM

Ahmadinejad's letter was not an invitation to embrace Islam, since I doubt he seriously expects the United States to do that. It was a de facto declaration of war. We should all be prepared for the coming catastrophe.

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at May 11, 2006 10:04 PM

In the light of this letter, the West, and especially the United States, faces only two options – conventional war now ... or nuclear war in a few months.

If we do not have the courage to face the facts and act now, we had better start learning the Quran.
hal lindsey

Posted by: storagemanager at May 11, 2006 10:04 PM

I guess the Baptists will be issuing a death warrant on me now.
Posted by: Hillbilly

maybe,but that was funny as hell

Posted by: patriot4 at May 11, 2006 10:08 PM

A Baptist preacher dies and goes to heaven. St Peter is showing him all the sights in Heaven and eventually leads him to a little shack with one room and an outhouse. St Peter tells him that this is his home for eternity. The preacher complains that his congregation was the largest in his state and he had saved thousands of souls from eternal damnation, and why doesn't he deserve a mansion on the hill like the one they passed a while ago. St Peter says, "There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Baptist preachers in Heaven and you are just one of many. The mansion on the hill is where the Imam lives and he is the only one who has made it here so far."

Posted by: Pelayo at May 11, 2006 10:28 PM

Nuclear war....we always thought it would be Russia. Maybe a sneak attack over the North Pole. A nut with nukes, this little rat-faced turd is going to try to destroy the world.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 11, 2006 10:33 PM

An answer needs to fit the gravity of the surrounding reality, not Mahmoud's fugue state.

Simply:

"Request understood. But rejected. Nuclear issues remain. Contact U.N. immediately. All the best to the Iranian people. Signed,..."

Translators and cultural experts have already told Bush what the Islamic Imperialist subtext is.

A professional need only reply to the geopolitical dangers, not duel with a crank over dogma.

Maybe an affable quote is parting:

"Stava bene, ma per star meglio, sto qui.

("I was good, but in order to be better, I'm here")

A nice epitaph.

__________________________________________________

(Literally, in Italy.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 11, 2006 10:38 PM

Why should Iran attack the US homeland when it has plenty of US personnel to target in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, with, in the former, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which it can fill with its own picked men, to act as a proxy?
My guess is that Ahmadinejad is planning what the IRA used to call 'a spectacular'- something like a big hit in the Green Zone, sinking a couple of ships, putting the oil terminals in the North Arabian Gulf out of business, perhaps even some kind of Tet Offensive. Hezbollah could do something against Israel at the same time, for added effect.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 11, 2006 11:03 PM

Crusader18 says,
"Islam must be eterally under our boot, or at our throats."

I would prefer the former.

Posted by: WIDEAWAKE at May 11, 2006 11:45 PM

The Iranian people must convince the Iranian military and police to take their guns off the Iranian people, and instead target the Iranian regime. The almost 30-year-old regime is on borrowed time. It is recommended that the Iranian people take care of the dissolution of the Iranian regime themselves, or a few other countries will do it...

Posted by: SFOD at May 12, 2006 12:01 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

A lot of good points and much war-mongering has been had on this thread.

I think that the US adminstration is rightly waiting to see what transpiries, what is true, what is false and what is the real position of Iran before reacting.

I think this is prudent and responsible decisions MAY be made. I say this because your president's position is unclear to me ...and what strenght of feeling there is in Amrika for yet more fighting.

US Peoples may yet become fed up of always protecting Israel...also with not many years of his presidency left...he may wait too long...and all decision making "opportunities" are gone.

(Ofcourse...Islam suffers from none of these woes...decisions are made alreday in the Quaran...you just have to find the right place).

Clearly, China & Russia do not share the Amrikan peoples feeling of imminent danger ...and Iran has been very clever to exploit this with moneys and oil deals.

So, once again if there is war, it will be unilateral Amrikan/UK onto Iran....who will seek to get Israel involved in the hope of attracting other muslim states to join them in the "good" fight.

He will say that this fight is for Islam & not just for Iran....but being mainly shia....it is difficult to gauge, what support Iran will get, particularily as the sunni are not all that interested to see the 12th Iamam....they want to see their own caliphate take pride of place.

Everybody knows including the Iranins that they stand no chance in a fair fight....so why do that.

The most likey scenarios in my mind are that there will be suicide attacks in mainland western cities....this is their best form of attack as it is so difficult to defend against.

Do NOT be surprised by an easy win by the "crusader" army followed by years & years of a war of attrition.

This attrition can be fought in Iran or the US...it will be your choice. You have always had that choice... and ofcourse if it happens in US cities and not in Russin & Chinese cities...expect little help from them.

Whether the US will continue to buy chinese goods at the rate you do will be interesting? I mean you built them up...they owe it all to you ....but they won't be willing to help...because they want YOUR pride of place.....communism won after all what?

Continuing on though, I think while US causalties are hard to take by the US peoples....it may well be another thing if those causalties are of innocents in US cities. "Let Isreal defend itself", we have had enough of that, the truly innocents will say.

Still only time will tell.

One thing I did want to ask is this? Have Mr. Spencer or Mr. Fitzgerald ever been asked for advice/information by your administration?

Posted by: Naseem at May 12, 2006 12:27 AM

Robert, Mahmood Ahmdi-Najad's letter to President followed the same pattern as prophet Mahammed's letter to the leader of the Byzantine Empire, Heraclius in 630 AD, giving them them the opportunity to convert to Islam or accept the consequences of leading their people astray. In essence, it is a Declaration of War on Satan America. However, the Muslims must first invite the non-believers to accept Islam. Muslims, on the other hand have an obligation to remove ALL the obstacles to the "natural" spread of Islam (This is the basis of Offensive Jihad

IRAN AHMADINEJID’S TO PRESIDENT BUSH
President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm
Jakarta, May 11, IRNA
Indonesia-Ahmadinejad-Bush
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.
He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta.
Stressing that the letter was beyond the nuclear issue, the chief executive said that in principle, the country's nuclear case is not so significant to make him write a letter about it.
"We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.
"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.
The president said that the letter actually contained a clear message of invitation to human beliefs, adding that its response will determine the future.
Concerning Iran's readiness to hold talks with the US, he said that Iran is in favor of dialogues, but it depends on the conditions.
"We hold talks with our allies, such as Indonesia, quite smoothly. However those intending to speak to us with authority should attempt to change their attitude," he added.
About the possibility of military attack on Iran, he said that psychological war is quite likely and expressed his doubt about the military option.
In response to a question about suspension of enrichment, the president said that Iran will agree to suspend the process only if all those having access to nuclear fuel will suspend theirs and let their relevant facilities be inspected.
"Otherwise, we do not find it necessary to suspend our uranium enrichment and consider the call for it as unfair and will continue to reject it,"
In reply to another question whether Iran will need the assistance of other Islamic states in its nuclear issue, he said that the country has the potential to defend itself.
"However, given that we do not merely defend our own nation, we wish to feel the presence of our allies, including Indonesia as one of our closest friends," he added.
In response to a question about Indonesia's mediation between Iran and the US, he said that if such dialogue has to take place for the sake of global peace and detente, Iran prefers Indonesia to be one of the negotiators.
2326/1412
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The below is Sura 9 Verse 5 http://i-cias.com/e.o/texts/koran/koran009.htm Declaration of War
5 But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, God is forgiving and merciful
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The letter that was sent by the Iranian President to President Bush is similar to the letter that the Prophet Mohammed sent to the Byzantine Emperor Heraculius in 630 AD. Inviting him to become a Muslim or accept the consequences. This particular Hadith is from Bukhari, 4th Volume, (Book of Jihad), Book 52, Number 191 (last two paragraphs only)
"In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraculius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..(3.64)
Abu Sufyan added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech, there was a great hue and cry caused by the Byzantine Royalties surrounding him, and there was so much noise that I did not understand what they said. So, we were turned out of the court. When I went out with my companions and we were alone, I said to them, 'Verily, Ibn Abi Kabsha's (i.e. the Prophet's) affair has gained power. This is the King of Bani Al-Asfar fearing him." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah, I remained low and was sure that his religion would be victorious till Allah converted me to Islam, though I disliked it "

Posted by: rsh at May 12, 2006 12:31 AM

hey naseem,where ya been?Man,i hope the fight will come here naseem,not only will we kick islam a**,we need a fresh government.One of the drafters of this great country said that every 100-150 years the people need to clean out the old government,and start off fresh.

Posted by: patriot4 at May 12, 2006 12:34 AM

Cocked,locked and loaded

Posted by: patriot4 at May 12, 2006 12:36 AM

Off to bed,night all

Posted by: patriot4 at May 12, 2006 12:37 AM

In my experience, most Hindus object to being called polytheists. They argue - and you can read the BhagavadGita and find the idea there - that they believe in one God, but a God who takes a million shapes, being present in all things. Indeed, the BhagavadGita itself is in the form of a dialogue between the immediate incarnation of God, Krishna, and the great human hero Arjuna (comparable to Sir Lancelot or Roland or Achilles in our legends), but in fact Arjuna himself is an incarnation of another form of God - he is Nara, "Man", the Divinity in man, and Krishna is "Narayana", Man's Path, the form of God who directs Man on the right Path. So in effect it is God who is talking to God in the Gita: the God outside Man to the God within Man. But these subtleties are lost on Muslims, whose reaction to all this philosophy has generally been to get the scimitar out and start swinging.

Posted by: Paolo at May 12, 2006 12:40 AM

Incidentally, have you ever noticed what an ugly and meaningless expression that is?

Posted by: Paolo at May 11, 2006 04:16 PM

I said exactly the same thing to my daughter just this afternoon! The ubiquitous "community" euphemisms make me SICK! The idea of an "international" community is the most asinine idiocy ever contrived. Likewise every other incongruous "community" invented by left-wing egalitarians. They take great pains to divide people into separate "communities" based on ethnicity, race, religion, or whatever, and then refer to all of humankind as one big "international" community. The UN is a perfect example of international disharmony, which has existed between disparite peoples and cultures since time immemorial and will never change. The UN is a major contributor to the hostilities and confusion in the world and is a deterrent to peace and stability. Their inexorable quest for a global utopia is responsible for much of the chaos in today's world.

As for the psychotic president of Iran, he has been fomenting war since the day he was elected. I think Iran already has nuclear weapons and the grandstanding that has been going on for the last year is a smokescreen designed to conceal his preparations for Armageddon.

The erudite bureaucrats and intelligentsia in the UN and Western governments do not take the deranged president of Iran seriously. They think he's just a bag of hot, hyperbolic rhetoric; no sane person would actually commit the heinous atrocities he threatens daily. I expect his actions to exceed even his most diabolical threats and they will occur when and where they are least expected. We are about to witness the most extreme and devastating manifestation of Islam's satanic power.

Posted by: Susanp at May 12, 2006 12:52 AM

I think if Naseem types "Amrika" one more time she should be banned from these forums.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 12, 2006 1:14 AM

In my experience, most Hindus object to being called polytheists. They argue - and you can read the BhagavadGita and find the idea there - that they believe in one God, but a God who takes a million shapes, being present in all things. Indeed, the BhagavadGita itself is in the form of a dialogue between the immediate incarnation of God, Krishna, and the great human hero Arjuna (comparable to Sir Lancelot or Roland or Achilles in our legends), but in fact Arjuna himself is an incarnation of another form of God - he is Nara, "Man", the Divinity in man, and Krishna is "Narayana", Man's Path, the form of God who directs Man on the right Path. So in effect it is God who is talking to God in the Gita: the God outside Man to the God within Man.

Paolo

Hinduism is a Polytheistic religion. I don't see why either

• Hindus should deny the polytheistic nature of the religion itself;
  
• Polytheism itself should be treated as a slur: what's wrong with multiple gods (and goddesses)?

Hinduism has the trinity concept - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver (of righteousness) and Shiva the destroyer (of evil). Have you ever come across any Hindu claim that Brahma is Vishnu is Shiva? Their respective consorts - Saraswati the goddess of knowledge, Lakshmi the goddess of wealth and Durga the goddess of power. Did you ever come across any Hindu who claimed that they are all one and the same?

(Incidentally, since Christians have the trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are they taken as one? Or many?)

Add to that the various devas - Indra, the ruler of the devas, and god of the rains, thunder, & lightning; Surya, the sun god, Vayu the wind god, Agni the fire god and Varuna the water god (representing the 5 elements). Anybody claiming that they are interchangable? Or did they claim that they aren't gods?

I am Hindu, and I have read the Gita. In it, Krishna does claim to be omnipotent and omnipresent, but what he claims is that all beings reside in him. He does not claim to replace or supplant the other gods. Besides, not all Hindus are Vaishnavs (Vishnu devotees): a good portion of the Hindu population is Shaivite, and don't worship Krishna as the sole god. Also, Arjuna was not so much an incarnation of any god; rather, he gained his divinity as he was the son of Indra (mentioned above), and he was a cousin of Krishna.

The Hindus you encountered who object to being called polytheists may consider themselves "monotheists" because they may worship only one of the many gods that exist - Ganesh, Durga, Lakshmi, et al. But not all Hindus worship the same gods. As a result, calling Hinduism a monotheist religion the way Judaism or Christianity is, is down and out misleading.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 1:38 AM

Hi Skald -

You asked if Christ is God -- or the Only Begotten Son of God. The answer is "Yes" to both points. Jesus said, "I and my Father are One", and Jesus is also the second member of The Trinity: Father -- Son -- Holy Spirit.

I like to compare The Trinity to an egg: the shell, the white, the yolk. They all need to be present in order to have a whole and complete egg.

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 1:52 AM

Paolo and SusanP

I don't know about ugly, but I completely agree with you about the meaninglessness of the term "international community." It is as though a majority of the populations of all UN members have certain opinions about various issues, be it Israel, the US, global warming, unilateralism, racism, militarization, et al. But in most of the countries, most people don't care. Does anyone believe that most Brazilians have strong opinions about the Palestinian issue? That most Chinese have strong opinions about global warming? That most Russians have strong opinions about US unilateralism? The only people who care are a bunch of diplomatic elitists in all these countries, and in case of Islamic countries, there is a popular hatred for Israel fueled by the Quranic prescriptions of Judeophobia. But other than that, there is not an international concensus on any of the issues that are said to be of concern to the "international community".

As was seen in the 90's, all the bloodbath that took place in Rwanda, for instance, proved the myth about the international community. After all, if a majority of people worldwide were genuinely moved by that slaughter, there would have been international intervention in Rwanda and Burundi without needing to involve the US. In fact, in the 90's, with the exception of Kosovo, the US generally followed a policy of non-intervention in international disputes, and that did not win it any support with the "international community". For instance, since the US did nothing in Bosnia, in the end, nothing was done; it's not like that great EU superpower stepped in to provide a solution of its own, in what was essentially going on in the European continent.

So what is the "international community"? It's a self styled bunch of elitists worldwide who need to feel important because they have never achieved anything noteworthy in their lives. Such people generally have more in common with each other, and usually wilfully ignore the interests of their respective countries. That is why you have the unseemly sight of the US state department, or the EU being anti Israel, or an overwhelming majority of UN members usually voting against Israel. It's not because a majority of their populaces are anti-Israel; it's because they have that old boys club of their own, where such consensus is reached, and where they vote regardless of their own national interests.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 1:54 AM

Re: the Trinity - one or many, here is the Nicene Creed regarding it:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Posted by: Kay at May 12, 2006 1:56 AM

Kay, thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 2:01 AM

Infidel Pride; the Hindus I met and argued with tended to accept ALL the gods in question - as forms of the One. As for the Gita, you evidently fail to take into consideration the whole of Yoga X and the opening slokas of Yoga XI, in which Krishna reveals himself as literally one with Visnu, Indra, Siva, Agni, etc. etc. etc., the chief of every order of beings from Gods to snakes. And the difference between Vaisnavas and Saivas is not on whether there is one ultimate Self who is truth, lord and soul of all the universe, but as to which is his primary face. You want to call that polytheism? Fine. Argue it with your own correligionists, who do not agree with you. I would not even agree that it is Monotheism - I only report what my Hindu friends, who belong to more than one tendency, told me. Incidentally, I myself would not even call it Monotheism as they describe it; to me, it is Pantheism, which is a different kind of beast.

Posted by: Paolo at May 12, 2006 2:16 AM

Paolo

In that case, I agree with you. While some Hindus may well be Pantheists (to the extent of even crossing denominational boundaries and worshipping Jesus et al), not all are: there are certain gods/goddesses that they may not worship. It's funny to hear Robert's exhortations to Muslims being echoed back at me, but if any Hindus did claim to me that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion, I'd be more than happy to argue that with them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 2:39 AM

Paolo & Infidel Pride,

well said.

I cant agree more, I am a hindu & in every hindu classes or text I attended when I was young, they would always refer that theres one god.

Since the concept is one god, theres no restrictions for any hindus to pray in other religion's temple & theres no restriction for others not to pray in a hindu temple.

I would humbly say that to my intepretations, Hinduism is a monotheistic religion to most extend (while you are partially right). This is because, each of the gods they pray to are actually from one. The characteristics vary from the objective of an individual. These are made popular because it relates very close to one's lifestyle.

For example, If you are a student & want to excel in studies, you are encouraged to pray to the goddes Saraswathy, In worshiping to her, you need to be strict in studies, books should be lower than your knee level & practice strict rules that ensures proper study discipline.

The same applies to people who want to prosper in wealth & to have courage. And so on.

Kids and young adults tend to follow this path & when they get older/wiser, this tend to be left out & they begin to understand the true nature of hinduism. Many will pray with only a small light. Thus applying the monotheistic concept.

Posted by: tjwork at May 12, 2006 4:16 AM

Correction:

..books should be *NOT* lower than your knee level..

Posted by: tjwork at May 12, 2006 4:17 AM

tjwork

Now I look like digressing (particularly for this site, so I'll try and keep it short and sweet), but there are too many things in Hindu tradition and mythology to allow the idea that our religion is monotheistic. Obviously, anyone is entitled to their interpretation of it, and since there is no equivalent of the Hadith in Hindu scriptures, there's nothing to tell you or me that what either is practicing is fake.

However, in the Vedas, Puranas, as well as in the Ramayana & Mahabharata, there are cases after cases after cases of different Gods praying to other Gods to bail them out of ugly situations. Take for instance, the Ramayana, with Brahma granting Ravana a boon that he'd be unconquerable except by mortals, and the devas having to appeal to Vishnu to appear on earth as a mortal for the purposes of destroying Ravana. If there was only one god, as you suggest, such a thing would have been impossible: Indra or the devas could have defeated Ravana as easily as Rama did.

What I conclude from various Hindu texts is that there is a hierarchy of Gods, and unlike in a monotheistic religion where God is perfect, each of the Gods in Hinduism is imperfect, has fouled up on some occasion or another, and other Gods have had to fix things (e.g. Brahma making Ravana unconquerable and Vishnu fixing that for him by taking the Rama Avatar, Vishnu as Parashuram massacring several Kshatriya generations and the other gods/rishis intervening and persuading him to lay down his arms, Shiva unable to defeat Ganesh in battle and having to behead him from behind (which was the prelude to the elephant head)). It seems more likely that this entire hierarchy of Gods exist as a divine system of checks and balances, and ironically, also appears to strengthen the case that gods (albeit imperfect) exist.

If there was only one God, not only would the above events not have happened, but a lot of the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas couldn't have taken place. I mean one God would have had to masquerade as several in different scenarios in a manner that just defies any logical explanation.
Somehow, the idea that the universe is too big and complex for one deity to have handled it all seems to make more sense to me. But then again, that's just me.

Okay, so off my soap box.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 4:48 AM

Here's the irony of it:

"In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Khalid bin al-Walid to the governors of Persia (Iran). Embrace Islam so that you may be safe. If not, make a covenant with me and pay the Jizyah tax. Otherwise, I have brought you a people who love death just as you love drinking wine."

At-Tabari, Vol XI, The Challenge to the Empires, In series: The History of at-Tabari, (Ta’rikh al-rasul wa’l-muluk), Translated by K.Y. Blankkinship, SUNY series in near Eastern Studies, Bibliotheca Persica, State University of New York Press, Albany New York, 1993, p.44-45

Posted by: Joel at May 12, 2006 7:58 AM

Hey Naseem, sweet entity, bit on the outlining side today?,
No worries,
those idiotic orientals put that Texan a bit more into the corner and they`ll have to carry the consequences...there is a lot of underestimating been done on all sides.

U.S. got no choice, but do them before being done. History will judge it right.

it will be sold as being deeply satisfying to walk the ruins of what once had been named ´Mecca`...
(Medina = rubble,Jerusalem mosque bulldozed, Sultan Ahmed converted into public museum, flightseeing over the wastelands of antique Persia..etc.etc.) soon to come to a screen near you!!!

p.s./ ...muslim women are ~50% of the lot, and very many many of them do NOT want to be liberated. There are quite a few that are actually part of the problem.

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 12, 2006 9:14 AM

Yes, well it may seem to some that we are 'digressing' and no one seems to be comfortable discussing religion, but I think in this case, where we have a religious war being thrust upon us, willy-nilly, it seems that we should be familiar with the concepts that our enemies so despise.

The Nicene Creed, written in the 4th century, which I cut and paste a few posts ago, is the crux of the matter. It is accepted by all major denominations as well as the Catholic Church. It separates those eligible for Dhimmi from those that are only eligible only for beheading.
Those that have been nominally Christian all their lives should know the difference.

Posted by: Kay at May 12, 2006 11:09 AM

I am with Ironman Hondo all the way. Ammo up and if it is muslim and breathin' just shoot.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 12, 2006 12:06 PM

How simple, and beautiful, Jesus makes it all.

Posted by: Xerxes at May 12, 2006 12:42 PM

Arjun,

Easy there .....I thought it was against a brahmin to ber arms...they normally hide behind the sikh.

Don't hit that rifle butt in your head whilst practising now.

Posted by: Naseem at May 12, 2006 12:43 PM

Yes, well it may seem to some that we are 'digressing' and no one seems to be comfortable discussing religion, but I think in this case, where we have a religious war being thrust upon us, willy-nilly, it seems that we should be familiar with the concepts that our enemies so despise. Posted by: Kay

Kay

The reason Mohammed hated religions other than the cult he founded had little to do with the contents of the other religions, and more to do with his myriad pathologies. It is not necessary to understand Judaism, for instance, in order to figure out why he hated Jews. For instance, in the Quran, it states that Jews regard Ezra as the son of God (9:30). This begs several questions:

• Jews actually don't have such a belief;
  
• Even if they did, what's the big deal?
  

Why is it therefore important to understand the basis of what the Quran (or the hadith, sira or tafsir) say? Isn't it enough that Mohammed was a pathological imbecile who didn't have a clue about what he was condemning, but nonetheless went on to decree that everyone unfortunate enough to fall to his hordes had the choice of death, Islam or dhimmitude? Why would one have to understand whether or not Hinduism is polytheistic, Jews worship Ezra or whether the Christian belief in the trinity is an endorsement of polytheism?

Also why is there an underlying assumption that the Islamic hatred of mushriks (not unique, since they regard other monotheistic religions with the same contempt as polytheism) is rational, and that one should understand whether or not polytheism is therefore something that one needs to be familiar with before one confronts Islam? The only thing one does need to be familiar with is Islam; polytheism itself is completely tangential to this discussion.

That's the reason I gingerly strayed into the topic of whether or not Hinduism is polytheistic. I am not shy or uncomfortable discussing religion, especially mine; I just don't get the idea that this is the place for it, particularly given that this is a discussion that could too easily spawn off into a theological discussion on Hindu beliefs. Other than that, I'm more than happy to satisfy the curiousity that people may have about Hinduism (admittedly from just my perspective).

However, I don't believe that any infidel - Hindu, Jew, Christian, Buddhist... needs to rationalize what (s)he believes in: the fact that there is a billion strong cult out to slaughter us is what should unite us, regardless of what we may otherwise think of each other.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2006 1:15 PM

Naseem -- you either suffer from "Multiple Personality Disorder", or Naseem is more than one person. How many women live beneath that burqa anyway?

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 1:29 PM

'The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.'

The Three-In-One.

I often wonder why some seek to Limit the power of God. A being who created a Universe at least 20 billion light years across, can account for every single star (not to mention sparrow), who is worshipped by who knows how many beings (you can't be serious that the Universe is empty save for us! Nor can you seriously expect Him to have explained the Universe to shepherds)...

Believe in Him or don't, Three-In-One seems like a rather simple thing to accomplish.

(On short notice here. Been away all week, lost my Father-in-law, busy time, hoping he's not telling my own father anything bad about me ;) )

Posted by: Gary at May 12, 2006 4:09 PM

Fire before you see the whites of their eyes! Fire before you see the white of hot flash!

Posted by: David England at May 12, 2006 5:02 PM

Infidel Pride,

When discussing these issues directly with Muslims today, there is a difference between acceptable Christians and unacceptable Christians, tolerable and intolerable ones. The line in the sand appears to be the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I understand where you are coming from, but I am delineating the difference between dhimmi and death.

The 'tolerable' Christians, those who do NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, can be dealt with in patience until "Isa" (their Jesus) returns and explains to Christians that they have been mistaken and he did not die on the cross.

So, there is some distinction between the two groups of "Christians" to the Muslims. Of course, Christians would never accept this concept.

Posted by: Kay at May 12, 2006 7:13 PM

Since this is an expiring thread, but one which has turned towards religious matters, I hope noone will mind if ask whether any Christians out there could enlighten me on their thoughts about the "Gospel of Thomas", discovered in the 1940's and apparently condemned as Gnostic heresy. I ask because I only stumbled across it fairly recently and it made perfect sense to me, in light of what else I have read in Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy more generally.

Posted by: Caroline at May 12, 2006 8:08 PM

Hi Caroline -

I don't know much about the Gospel of Thomas, but I do know a few things about the Gospel of Judas; as it was also written by the Gnostics.

The Gnostics were not true believers - in fact - they worshipped satan, and sex was their form of worship, but they called themselves Christians. Not only was the Gospel of Judas written to portray Judas as a saint, but they believed the serpent to be the "true hero of Genesis".

Basically -- the Gnostics agenda is to place angelic wings on every evil character of the Bible. Satan may have fooled the Gnostics, but he can't fool a true follower of Christ.

Hope this helps! What have you learned?

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 8:23 PM

Hi Champ - I was afraid someone would say that! But no - that's not at all what I take from it. Frankly, it reads like something straight out of zen buddhism. It is comprised of 114 statements preceded by "Jesus said" which almost read like Zen koans. I take gnosticism to be conveying something which is totally akin to the eastern concept of "enlightenment." I.e. - Truth, with a capital "T", is directly available to the direct experience of everyone because "the kingdom is within you" so to speak and its really just a matter of finding the key which unlocks the secret. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus appears to be conveying that he has found the key - it is within ("Know thyself" in the Socratic tradition, which gnosticism apparently owes a great deal to). I admit that I don't much care for the apparent elitism of this perspective but I don't see elitism as a necessary consequence, just a point of fact that most people are simply not going to have either the curiosity nor the stamina to persist in looking for the key. What surprised me about reading it (and some interpretrations on the web) is that this Gospel is sort of what I thought Jesus was getting at all along - in other words, that the death and resurrection was something of a metaphor for enlightenment (I'm not saying that the Gospel of Thomas claims that - just that it sort of reads that way in the light of Buddhist and other eastern traditions). What I didn't realize though was that this is apparently gnostic heresy! Oops!

Posted by: Caroline at May 12, 2006 9:44 PM

Hi Caroline -

Well, that is very interesting, and that would explain why the Gnostic "gospels" were never canonized scripture, if they were aimed at finding the "God within", rather than through Jesus Christ.

And I also read that there are different Gnostic sects (big surprise, as there seems to be different sects to every religion), and certain sects were more involved in satanic practices than others.

Didn't the Gnostic religion begin about 100-200 years after Jesus died and rose from the dead? So I don't see how they could accurately record the words of Jesus when they never met Him; unlike Christs' disciples: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, who spent time with Jesus individually and collectively.

Jesus warned that there would be false Christs', and in my opinion, the Gnostic gospels fall in that category.

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 10:30 PM

Of course it's a declaration of war!

Do any Moslems believe otherwise?

Truth is Stranger than Fiction

Posted by: Pangloss at May 13, 2006 5:05 AM

Champ - here are some FAQ's on the Gospel of Thomas which clarifies something about the gnosticism angle:

http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html

There is also a considerable amount of info on the web here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

"Didn't the Gnostic religion begin about 100-200 years after Jesus died and rose from the dead?"

Apparently there has been some revision of that view:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

"The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past. Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Its Eastern origin was already maintained by Gieseler and Neander; F. Ch. Bauer (1831) and Lassen (1858) sought to prove its relation to the religions of India; Lipsius (1860) pointed to Syria and Phoenicia as its home, and Hilgenfeld (1884) thought it was connected with later Mazdeism. Joel (1880), Weingarten (1881), Koffmane (1881), Anrich (1894), and Wobbermin (1896) sought to account for the rise of Gnosticism by the influence of Greek Platonic philosophy and the Greek mysteries, while Harnack described it as "acute Hellenization of Christianity". For the past twenty-five years, however, the trend of scholarship has steadily moved towards proving the pre-Christian Oriental origins of Gnosticism."

Well, I must say this is all new to me and I will have to read further. I think you are correct though about the different gnostic sects and the practice of satanism (as well as the occult). Gnosticism also seems to have some links to totalitarian movements (nazism) but I don't know enough about it to know if that represents a corruption of its basic tenets. In any case, as indicated in the first link, there is apparently some debate about whether the Gospel of Thomas should even be considered gnostic. There are so many posters here who are well-versed in history and theology I just wondered whether anyone could shed some light. (btw - not trying to hijack the thread - I just figured the thread was sort of dying down anyway).

Posted by: Caroline at May 13, 2006 9:22 AM

Hi Caroline -- interesting stuff -- thanks for sending!

The first link you attached was good, because it points out that they "don't know who wrote" the Gospel of Thomas, which tells me it should be scrutinized very carefully.

And if what you said is true, that the GofT points to discovering the "god within", then it can't be the words of Jesus Christ, because it isn't consistent with how the Bible portrays Jesus.

Jesus said that there would be many false Christ's in the Last Days. Lets keep our hearts and lives pure before the Lord.

Posted by: champ at May 13, 2006 2:16 PM

Champ - you're an immensely good sport for continuing this conversation. :-)

I was struck by your comment:

"And if what you said is true, that the GofT points to discovering the "god within", then it can't be the words of Jesus Christ, because it isn't consistent with how the Bible portrays Jesus."

Of course on some level that answer is a tautology is it not? Because it doesn't address the more central question as to whether the Gospel of Thomas is or is not a more accurate depiction of the actual words of Jesus than the 4 gospels which were incorporated into the Bible.

Intrigued by the point you raise, however, I googled the question, "key difference between Gnostocism and Christianity?" and came up with this:

http://www.essene.com/EarlyChurch/OrthodoxFromGnostic/The_Wheel.htm

"The portrait of Gnostics as dangerous counter-Christians, a portrait painted by power and enshrined as truth, held for sixteen hundred years, until 1945, when an archaeological find known as the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered inside a cave in a mountain in upper Egypt. [Note that the Gospel of Thomas was part of the Nag Hammadi discovery]. This remarkable collection of fourth-century Coptic texts, thought to have been copied from material that may date back to as early as the second half of the first century,[2] cast new light upon long-obscured Christian history: a history that revealed no suggestion that Gnostics hated life or favored any of the repulsive behaviors attributed to them, but rather that they advocated individualism in pursuit of their primary goal, the search for enlightenment. What the Nag Hammadi texts also disclosed is that from the very beginning of Christianity, there existed an alternative theology, a competing—and compelling—interpretation of scripture which, had it not been actively suppressed, might have undermined the entire fabric of the early Church."

As to the key ideas which separate Christian gnostic "heresy" from what evolved as "orthodox" Christianity....

"...we see a theology centered around two ideas: that a "divine spark" inheres in humanity, and that the process of salvation represents a universal principle that Jesus demonstrated for humanity so that people could follow his example."

I see, espcially in that latter point - namely "so that people could follow his example" - the similarity to Buddhism and also why as you suggest, it would be heresy to suggest this interpretation of "the Kingdom is within" - because it would undermine the notion that salvation is literally "through" Jesus Christ as opposed to the idea of Jesus being an enlightened being (like the Buddha) whose real message for us was to "follow his example", as the link puts it.

When I go to read on about gnosticism on the web, however, I find all sorts of crazy madness - references to "secret orders" and "occult" practices and "magic" and on and on and on. Yuk. Human beings manage to ruin everything they touch. (It's also interesting to read however, that a number of our founding fathers were actually Freemasons - which are apparently a derivative Gnostic sect along with the Rosicrucians).

But, cutting through all the extraneous crap, it would seem to be the central question: was Jesus, in all his teachings, primarily an example to us of a human being who had found the God within (enlightened)? Or was he God (i.e. Divine?). And what precisely is the difference? If one has truly found the "God within" then how is that basically different from claiming to be Divine?

Champ - btw - I certainly don't mean to put the burden of answering these questions on YOU! That would be pretty absurd, given 2,000 years of human history having failed to resolve these questions definitively. I just enjoy trying to get down to the essence of things and this - this Gospel of Thomas and all the questions it raises - seems to me to get at the very essence of Christianity, which is why I find it rather intriguing.

Posted by: Caroline at May 13, 2006 4:29 PM