| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"He preaches violent jihad, you know." "So what? He takes out the trash!" In FrontPage today I discuss an important but unexamined aspect of the Canadian jihad arrests (news links in the original):
We have heard many times that the vast majority of Muslims in the West are decent, law-abiding citizens who do not engage in jihad terrorism. That is manifestly true: most Muslims in the West are not engaging in terrorist activity. Many no doubt have no intention of ever doing so. But the recent arrests in Canada have raised questions about to what extent Muslims in Canada and other Western countries who are not engaging in terrorist plotting actually disapprove of such plotting – and how many passively allow it to continue under their noses either out of fear or because the ideological kinship between them and the plotters is closer than most Western authorities would like to believe.In a meeting with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police just after the arrests, one Canadian Muslim leader asked Canadian officials why they hadn’t informed Muslim leaders about the plot, so that those leaders could have stopped it.
But there is mounting evidence that many Canadian Muslims did know – and yet did nothing to notify Canadian authorities of the plot. The Toronto Star reports that another suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, actively spread the jihad ideology at the Ar-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education in southern Ontario. Indeed, his “outspoken Wahhabist views” had “alarmed” some of the directors of the Islamic center. But by the account of mosque officials, because Jamal unlocked the mosque for daily prayers and they valued his services as a caretaker, they did nothing to stop his preaching. The Washington Post reports unironically: “He cleaned the rugs and took out the trash at the mosque. For those services, the directors tolerated his vitriolic speeches that portrayed Muslims as oppressed by the West, according to people familiar with the mosque.” No mainstream media outlet seems to have asked Ar-Rahman Islamic Center officials why they thought taking out the trash was a sufficient counterbalance to preaching hatred and violence. Sidestepping the fact that Jamal had been allowed to preach freely, Center Imam Qamrul Khanson said of those arrested: “I will say that they were steadfast, religious people. There’s no doubt about it. But here we always preach peace and moderation.”
Yet another imam in Toronto, Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin, noted that three of the plotters, Saad Khalid, Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, “would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a very aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and military touques and stuff. It looked to me that they were watching a lot of those Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff.” Amiruddin said that they were influenced by jihadist material from Saudi Arabia, including Qur’ans with inflammatory explanatory notes: “In the back of these Qur'ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff." According to the CBC, “Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.” But while Amiruddin points out that these young men would attempt to win others over to their point of view, he says nothing about having done anything to stop them, or about resisting jihadist recruitment in general -- much less working with authorities to help them apprehend jihadists.Also according to the Star, some of the plotters belonged to a school Muslim association in which they “discussed at an association gathering whether suicide bombing was permissible in Islam. Their views were so violent that the other association members threatened to have them banned.” But they apparently did not actually have them banned, or alert anyone to their violent views.
Likewise another Toronto Muslim, Mohammed Robert Heft. Heft said that one of the plotters, Fahim Ahmad, “believed the 19 people involved in the World Trade Center bombings were martyrs and he was handing out DVDs openly of wills and testimonies of those 19 people suggesting what they did was right.” According to the CBC, Heft asserted that “a lot of young Muslims are angry and extremism is prevalent in the Toronto area.” Heft claimed that he was dedicated to combating this “extremism”: “For the last two years I’ve been involved in this mentality. I was dealing with it on a grassroots level. All it takes is a little education and sorting out who to take religion from.” Yet he too apparently did nothing to alert Canadian authorities to Ahmad’s views.
And after all this, Canadian Muslim leaders complain that authorities did not go to them.
Canadian authorities, and officials in all Western countries, have been supine in the face of all this kind of thing for far too long. The jihad arrests in Canada should focus scrutiny not on the alleged misbehavior of Canadian law enforcement officials, but on the Muslim communities tolerance of the jihadist evil they profess to abhor. Law enforcement authorities in the West should call Muslim communities in their countries to account on this, and quickly -- or risk the successful execution of a jihad plot planned and executed under the noses of silent and supposedly moderate Western Muslims.
Posted by Robert at June 22, 2006 6:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Yet
Himmler stated to Joseph Goebbels that he had nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this Division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action; a very practical and attractive religion for soldiers!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 22, 2006 7:27 AM
Robert talks about Muslims in the West and Muslim immigration. I believe that there's a perfectly respectful way to sift out jihadis without violating the human rights of the poor dears. Anyone who wants to immigrate, should be asked if he feels he has the right to make war against country X or Y or Z. In the category of war, one could enumerate revolutionary guerrilla warfare, holy war of any sort, jihad, terrorism to bring about social improvements, etc. Then, if the applicant refuses to renounce any and every form of war against the host country --in word or deed-- then he should be refused the right to immigrate. If he does commit himself in writing to renouce all forms of warfare against country x,y, z, etc., then the Muslims among them could be monitored discreetly, which probably already happends. Whoever violates the commitment, should be deported or jailed. Don't these countries [including the USA] have laws against sedition? These laws should be enforced against anyone who preaches jihad. Jihad-preaching is sedition. If the sedition law is not enforced against jihad preachers, then the govt is endangering its own people.
The notorious john esposito minimizes the jihad danger. His mentor was Prof. Ismail Farouqi at Temple Univ in Philadelphia, USA. If we want to see one way in which the US establishment promoted jihad against America, then we might investigate how Farouqi was appointed to his professorship.
Posted by: Eliyahu at June 22, 2006 7:36 AM
Face it, many average Muslims have a lot more sympathy for terrorists than people care to admit. All one has to do is look at their silence. They get very worked up over some dumb Danish cartoons but say nothing when people get blown up in 911 or 7/7 etc etc.
Posted by: corli at June 22, 2006 7:40 AM
Thank goodness the Canadian police were able to "take out the garbage" before it spilt over.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 22, 2006 7:44 AM
When the cartoon controversy broke out, muslims marched in cities across the world in thousands. I did not even know my city had a lot of muslims. They were all very united. And united they remain. There is an extremely rare percentage who will let on what is going on in the mosques, before they are stopped from going to the mosques. The ummah support jihad. There ain't no 'moderate' muslims.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 22, 2006 7:46 AM
The structure of the islamists (forgive the word, please) is shown in a recent article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
It consists of concentric circles, whereof the outer one is nice and peaceful, and the inner one is directly connected to terrorist activities.
If you read german, you can find the article here
(check the last two paragraphs, all the rest is just a preparation for the average reader)
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/06/21/al/articleE8A2C.html
at June 22, 2006 7:58 AM
the question is Knowingly Silent or Silent Clueless?
Either way, the chain of command starts from the mosque clerics. Remove the cleric & the people will behave.
If there are 17 bomb plotters & none of them knew about it, it should not start from the mosque. This is simple logic. However, knowing the fact that general muslims would knew about it but do not want to support nor stop this plan.
Would not informing the authorities be a crime? I think YES.
at June 22, 2006 8:09 AM
C'mon! I had to look up "unironically." Geeeez!
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 22, 2006 8:12 AM
Ignore my last dumb - no - very dumb comment.
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 22, 2006 8:12 AM
From the article: " ... one Canadian Muslim leader asked Canadian officials why they hadn’t informed Muslim leaders about the plot, so that those leaders could have stopped it."
Outrageous! That Canadian Muslim should have been ejected from the meeting with a kick in the groin and a pie in the face (and placed on a watch list himself). It's completely obvious that what he expects is the Canadian police to tell him what the government knows and how it knows it, so that Muslims can tip off the plotters and purge any informants from their ranks. The Muslim concern is only for protecting the ummah and facilitating the jihad, not for "stopping plots" against infidel Canada.
at June 22, 2006 8:24 AM
INTERESTING !!!
Spencer - Are you aware of this organisation?
Muslims against terrorism and extremism
The Free Muslims Coalition is a nonprofit organization made up of American Muslims and American Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era.
Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.
Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. Free Muslims' efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders and organizations believe that when it comes to terrorism, the end justifies the means.
Other Americans have spoken up against terrorism, but never before has this message come with such clarity from Muslims or Arabs. Muslims are the only ones who can solve the problem of terror in Islam, and sadly until the founding of this Coalition, they were the only group who had not definitively spoken up against the use of terror.
Posted by: Churchill1938 at June 22, 2006 8:35 AM
Taking our religion back one Muslim at a time
We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
We believe in the separation of religion and state.
We believe that democracy is the best form of government.
We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.
We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.
We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.
at June 22, 2006 8:36 AM
Churchill, Search JW's archives. The FreeMuslims site has been around for years.
Problem is just how Islamic are they if they can quote for support from Muslim heretic Ibn Warraq on their resources page.
I have nothing against anti-Islamic Muslims but salvation is not going to come from them.
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 22, 2006 8:53 AM
There is the old muslim saying "If you have nothing good to say, just say nothing".
*The muslim meaning of good may sometimes (mostly) be contradictory to the actual meaning.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 22, 2006 9:01 AM
Mr. Spencer has written another insightful article. I always hope that at least a few police, FBI, CIA people read these articles too. If you see your neighbor stealing another neighbor's car, you must confront that person or call the proper authorities to stop the thief. If not, you are giving your tacit consent and approval to the theft. If Muslims know of plots and plans, and many most certainly do hear of such things, then they must also alert the proper authorities. If not, they are giving their tacit consent and approval of bombings, terrorist activities etc. And, they must share in the guilt and responsibility. They also lose the right to whine and cry about being victims. With 17 men so far indentified in the Canadian plot, there must have been at least some with "loose lips." My guess is that several hundred Muslims knew something of the plot, if not the complete details.
Posted by: maryrose at June 22, 2006 10:06 AM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Today, ignorance of Islam can no longer be offered as an excuse by Muslims. Too much has happened. Too much has been circulated on satellite television, on the Internet. The Infidels have learned what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith. They are learning what Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, offers by way of an example of the "Perfect Man" -- see Arthur Jeffery, see Sir William Muir, see Tor Andrae, see Maxime Rodinson -- and the picture is not pretty.
Therefore one has a right to hold all those who claim to be Muslims, after all that has been happening and is now known to be happening, to understand the contents of their own belief-system and to understand how it is perfectly reasonable for Infidels to be alarmed at what appears to be a mortal threat to them and to everything they have inheited as a civilizational legacy or even managed to add their mite too. It is not only a question of killing, converting, or reducing non-Muslims to a state of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. Long before then, Infidel lands can be rendered places of deep unsettlement, of people being constantly on edge, of great increases in the need for vigilance, for expensive monitoring and other security measures, for worries where none existed before, and for actual physical insecurity to Infidels who are not willingly silent or otherwise submissive (why did The New Duranty Times not publish those Danish cartoons, after all?).
That is why it makes sense, it is perfectly legitimate, to wish to diminish the presence and certainly the power of those whose belief-system, of which they declare themselves to be, uncompromisingly divides the world between Believers and Infidels.
No smiles at work, no inquiries into the health of children or wife, no displays on that level will any longer have the slightest effect in modifying what should be implacable resolve not to let those who can be held to a knowledge of, and without open discussion and dissent from, agreement with, the tenets of Islam which are not -- what's the old dorm-room poster phrase? --"healthy for Infidels and other living things."
We don't have to endure this. Every Infidel can learn from the experience of others. Those others may be discovered through the study of history: those non-Muslims who were conquered and subjugated by Muslims over 1350 years. Or by examining the fate of those Infidels (non-Muslmis) who are living under Muslim rule (for example, Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Christians in the Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Hindus and Christians and Confucians in Malaysia, Copts in Egypt, Christians in Iraq or Kuwait or the U.A.E. or Saudi Arabia). And finally, there is the observable experience of Infidels, in countries where large numbers of Muslims have been allowed negligently to settle (behind what they, the Muslims, are taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines delineating Dar al-Harb), and even generously given access to every conceivabl govenment program (or allowed without discernible to steadily rise and seize control of many university programs in the teaching of Middle Eastern and Islam-related subjects -- google "Posted by Hugh" and "MESA Nostra").
The Italians can learn from the French. The Americans can learn from the Dutch and Danish examples. We can all learn from the experience of othes, and two things will be clear.
1) The problems posed by Muslims in non-Muslim societies are not posed by Hindus, by Buddhists, by Confucians, not posed by Bolivian Indians or animists from the Congo. They are unique to Islam. They have to do with Muslims alone.
2) The problms experienced by Infidels whatever their country, from the large-scale presence of Muslims, is felt in all of them -- in Sweden (see Malmo), in Holland (see Rotterdam), in France (see Paris, Lyon, Marseille), in England (see London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham), in Italy and Germany and Belgium and Spain and Holland and Norway and...
So the problem is not with this or that labour or conservative government, not with this or that regime or even with this or that country -- for these countries differ in the way they attempt to deal with the problem. No, the problem is that of Islam, that of the belief-system and those who are born into it and, whatever they then learn about it, do not shake it but retain their loyalty, a loyalty which inevitaly leads to great woe, and no weal, for the Infidels among whom they have been allowed to settle, and until recently, were not understood, and still are not sufficiently understood.
at June 22, 2006 10:21 AM
As I've educated myself on Islam, I've come to the conclusion that there is widespread support for Jihad among Muslims in the West. A moderate Muslim is simply one who supports the jihadists quietly and engages in deception and other various activities to support and protect them. I do not trust them nor do I believe anything they say about Islam's moderation and love for peace anymore.
I did not want to reach this conclusion. I wanted to believe that "religion of peace" claptrap with all my heart. Yet there came a time where I couldn't kid myself anymore and had to face the truth: Islam is evil and wants to subjugate me and all non-Muslims. Islam is the enemy of freedom and civilization and must be opposed by all means possible.
I hope and pray our so caled "leaders" realize this truth soon enough to matter. I'm doing my part by spreading the word, something I'm sure my fellow "JihadWathers" are doing too.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 22, 2006 10:38 AM
If this is indeed a war as most of us here seem to agree, then either you are actively for us by action not word, or you are against us, silently or otherwise. As it is a war of civilsations there are NO neutrals.
If "moderate" Muslims wish to be accepted as such then they have to take a LEADING role in the war versus the jihadists and if they are so dedicated to peace with the infidel there should be NO problem.
The fact is that the only Muslims who seem to be actively against the jihadists are those muslims controlled by states with political connections and financial dependence to the USA. I am totally unaware of any international Islamic group who actively fight against the jihadists.
So, unless the mythical "moderate" Muslims become ACTIVE in the war versus the jihadists, they run a very great danger of being accepted as part of the problem when the war upon jihadists becomes a war upon Islam.
Either hey stand up and be counted in deeds or they become known as part of the problem.
To myself the total lack of spontaneous antijihadism across the islamic world shows me that it is ISLAM that is the problem.
But I can hope, if not idefinitely.
Posted by: Zathras at June 22, 2006 11:02 AM
"...great increases in the need for vigilance, for expensive monitoring and other security measures..."
We measure our economic success in GDP. Hiring all these security guards, policemen and judges creates plenty of jobs and increases GDP. Even better when thoese nutcases blow something up; work for our carpenters. Maybe the whole thing is a long term solution to unemployment?
at June 22, 2006 11:18 AM
I stand by you Proud Infidel and I'm sure more and more people join the ranks every day.
A moderate muslim, as we understand the meaning of that term, is what Mohammed and allah refer to as a 'hypocrite' or a 'rebel' from the Ummah.
To paraphrase Ibn Warraq 'there are moderates but Islam itself is not moderate'. Allah is not moderate nor was Mohammed. That is the problem.
Allah and Mohammed must be discredited.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 22, 2006 11:43 AM
Proud Infidel...you hit the nail on the head. No one in a civilized world wants to believe people can be taught to be bad. I noticed that when I was back home. People I talked to COULD NOT believe people were RAISED to do heinous things. They couldn't believe a "religion" would teach hate. Rape. Beheadings.
We don't go thinking people are naturally evil. They have to prove it to us first.
And islam certainly has.
Posted by: freewoman at June 22, 2006 11:50 AM
The "nest" that supports the "eggs" may not "do" anything, actively.
But, without it, as Mao noted in His "Guerrilla Warfare", the eggs could not survive or hope to hatch.
The "apparently peaceful" Ummah is the silent nest.
Silent and cowering as the militants run the religion, or smiling behind the doors of the mosque at the depredations of the terrorists acting in Allah's name.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 22, 2006 11:55 AM
A great thread here at JW.
"I believe that there's a perfectly respectful way to sift out jihadis without violating the human rights of the poor dears. Anyone who wants to immigrate, should be asked if he feels he has the right to make war against country X or Y or Z." Quote Eliyahu..
Eliyahu;
The trouble is they have the Islam-given right to mislead, they are allowed to, even supported by the faith of Islam.
If they follow Islam, they must do Jihad in one form or another, Through support of funds, through taking up arms, now, or in the future. The knee bone connection thing.
"Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. Free Muslims' efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously" Quoted Churchill1938
Churchill1938;
We should support this effort, but only with a watchful stance. I am sure it all sounds good, but how do you know everything they really believe? As they are here in the U.S.A, their words are welcome, but am sure it would not go over well "back home". I will howevercheck out their message with hope.
"As I've educated myself on Islam, I've come to the conclusion that there is widespread support for Jihad among Muslims in the West. A moderate Muslim is simply one who supports the jihadists quietly and engages in deception and other various activities to support and protect them. I do not trust them nor do I believe anything they say about Islam's moderation and love for peace anymore." Quote Proud Infidel ..
Proud Infidel;
I agree. The just of the issue. We are at war, and it looks like we a pulling the wooden horse into Troy. When will the enemy flee the belly?
"A moderate muslim, as we understand the meaning of that term, is what Mohammed and allah refer to as a 'hypocrite' or a 'rebel' from the Ummah." Quoted A_Plague_on_Both_Houses
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses;
And there it is. Why stay Muslim, when in the end you will be rejected by it? Whay do you stay and stand beside your brothers, the followers of Islam and Jihad?
at June 22, 2006 1:58 PM
Islofob IS-1 ... my guess on why moderates stay is the death warrant on those leaving Islam. That and the lack of imagination of the slaves... they don't know anything else and most don't have the mental tools to build a new perspective it seems.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 22, 2006 2:11 PM
In the face of worldwide genocidal episodes that have occurred throughout the past 14 centuries, widespread and unparalleled human suffering in much of Asia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and eastern Europe that has been caused by Islamic ideology and its fruits, Muslims have little to say about or against any of it. And they are generally as passive as they are silent.
The reason of course for Muslims' conspiracy of silence is that most Muslims DO believe what they are taught. They generally have unlearned the value of human life and have been desensitized to the terrible suffering Islam in action always causes. They are brainwashed into believing this is what the creator of the universe WANTS for mankind!
Muslims BELIEVE that "an evil fate awaits non-believers." Islam is more or less built on that principle. And Muslims are not about to do anything to change that.
Posted by: pythagoras at June 22, 2006 2:25 PM
“For the last two years I’ve been involved in this mentality. I was dealing with it on a grassroots level. All it takes is a little education and sorting out who to take religion from.”
Yes, it's all so easy. All it takes is a little education and sorting out. It must be good to know that everyone can rest easy with him on the case, given how easy it all is.
Posted by: redwine at June 22, 2006 3:38 PM
Question to this board? Is there an untold, perhaps 'unknowable' aspect of 9-11-01?
Did the 19 hide in plain sight, acting like the infedel, eating pork, dating blondes, keeping a safe distance from their Islamic coreligionists within the US??
This is the party line. The story of the youths who ended up at their last planning session in Las Vegas--getting lap dances while plotting Jihad.
And yet . . . . Some clues point to another reality. Take the San Diego sojourn of what was it--2 of the 19--didn't they have a roomate? Didn't they pray at the local mosques?? This is always bugged me; didn't they honor their obligation to pray in a mosque? Yet, almost nothing exists in print on the topic. Even in good books like 'Perfect Soldier' which highlights the Hambug cell.
And yet . . . . I leave you with the story of M. Atta. No, he was not the Islamic superman. Stealth, moxie he was not. This was a guy who a year ago before 911 went to a female government worker at the Agriculture Dept. and tried to buy a crop duster, said his prophet was Bin Laden, then tried to buy the landmark photographs off the wall(capital), saying 'one day we will destroy these.' I'm sure this worker now feels horrible about not reporting it, but my point is to illustrate how these guys were true-blooded Islamic psychos--probably some had serious 'issues'--besides being Muslim. These were not 007's operating with alternate identities.
My point: I believe they, like the other terrorists involved in other operations or wannabe operations whether in England or Cananda--interacted with their 'Muslim brothers' in the US. That means some Muslims did have advanced warning of 911(and not just UBL). I'm sure many were warned by their 'friends' to stay clear of the WTC.
Remember the young Pakistani kid(whose father was 'clean' with no discernable terrorists ties)who a few days before 911 looked from his classroom at the towers and said, "in a week they will be destroyed." Kind of a lucky guess! Or, did daddie here it at the Mosque, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a 'brother.'
Posted by: biorabbi at June 22, 2006 8:07 PM
FreeSpeech -- That concentric organizational or social structure sounds like Hannah Arendt's description (Origins of Totalitarianism?) of Nazi and Communist political movements. She said something to the effect that the outer ring served as the public face of the movement and was not so extremist as to be alarming to the general population. Those in the inner circles lived wholly among fellow movement members and so did not recognize the radical character of their own ideas. (It's been a long time since I read her, though.)
Posted by: Mr. Spog at June 22, 2006 9:18 PM
Frankly, I want to know why it's appropriate to impose a Mindreader's burden upon the majority of society and the security apparatus which is supposed to be protecting it.
"Not all Muslims are engaging in terrorist activity"
Well, Tom Swift, if you can hand me your electric mindreading machine, then go ahead. Otherwise, I have no choice but to guess as best as I can. And if you can't do better, then you've no right to criticize.
Posted by: sanman at June 22, 2006 11:17 PM
"my guess on why moderates stay is the death warrant on those leaving Islam." Posted by A_Plague_on_Both_Houses ..
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses
A possible answer, however the brand of islam they follow is also a good way to upset their angry muslum brothers, enough to loosen heads.
at June 23, 2006 12:04 AM
We always hear about how islam is the problem... I was curious to know if there have been any practical intiatives to deconstruct it as a structure? For example, has there been any study of how the divisions within islam can be played to keep these sub-humans more focussed on killing each other than non-muslims? Or any such thing? after all, muslims are the biggest killers of muslims... was just wondering if such a strategy was being worked in some place...
Posted by: kafir_central at June 23, 2006 1:49 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)