| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Ameer Ali seems to be trying to make up for his remarks here, and get back into the good graces of Australia's Muslim community. But the implications of his latest statements are ominous for Australian non-Muslims. For as long as the "cultural individuality" of Muslims is preserved, there will be Muslims in Australia looking for a chance to impose Sharia. One day their numbers may give them that chance.
"Australia a Muslim nation: advisor," from AAP, with thanks to Rosie:
AUSTRALIA is a Muslim nation, the head of Prime Minister John Howard's Muslim advisory board says.Dr Ameer Ali says most Australians practise Muslim values but the Muslim community is being alienated and disadvantaged by Islamophobia.
Dr Ali said multiculturalism was Australia's destiny but Muslims, as latecomers, were being disadvantaged.
"We would like to remain in this country as citizens like anybody else, but with cultural individuality preserved," he said.
"We want an Australia which is like a fruit salad with a nice juice in it, not a mega fruit juice."
Before addressing a conference on national identity today, Dr Ali said Muslim values were practised in Australia.
"When I go abroad, they ask me where do I come from? I say I come from a Muslim country," he said.
"Which country, they say. Australia.
"That's not a Muslim country. Yes it's Muslim country.
"For the value that my religion preaches, these people practise.
"So I see Islam here but (the people) may not be Muslims, but in (other) countries I see Muslims but not Islam.
"So when I come back to Australia, I've been told to respect Australian values and now I am confused, because I see no contradiction at all.
"Values are universal. Human values - there is no such thing as Australian values."
Dr Ali has denied a report in The Australian newspaper last week which quoted him as saying that Muslims should not blindly follow the Koran and that Mohammed was not the perfect model and had human flaws.
But Dr Ali said the comments and a caption underneath a photograph saying "Muslim minds closed" were deeply offensive to all Muslims.
Federal parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs, Andrew Robb, said Dr Ali should be congratulated for the comments.
But Dr Ali has been inundated with complaints from angry Muslims since the story appeared and Australia's most senior Islamic cleric called for him to be ostracised.
"I have received a number of emails from my fellow Muslims who have taken this opportunity to ridicule me and I do not deny their right to do so," Dr Ali said.
"The description projected by the article in The Australian totally misrepresents the noble character of the Holy Prophet who was sent as a model to humanity.
"Any part that I may have unwittingly played in this depiction is deeply regretted."
Posted by Robert at October 8, 2006 6:52 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This bloke has dug a hole for himself now he is trying to appease his "friends". We have about 300 000 Muslims in a country of 20 million, still a smaller proportion than many.
Posted by: payingattention![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 8, 2006 7:18 AM
Dr Ameer Ali says most Australians practise Muslim values
If that's the case, why aren't there more Aussie headchoppers?
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at October 8, 2006 7:21 AM
"We want an Australia which is like a fruit salad with a nice juice in it, not a mega fruit juice."
You mean you want an Australia of burka-clad women and closed-down bars and nightclubs.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at October 8, 2006 7:24 AM
I obviously must have missed something during my 4 decades here. I cannot remember a stoning, a beheading, the murder of an apostate etc. but then as the media seems usually so proIslam maybe it has all been censored.
All that I know is that I resent even being associated with the barbaric rantings of a long dead arab nomad warlord and his rubbish about communing with his god.
The problem dear Dr. Ali faces is that while no muslim ever seems to have an inkling of the truth as seen by the independent eyes of an omnipotent being, there are quite a few of us nonmuslims who do have some idea of historical truth and an appreciation of day-to-day reality despite the inevitable leftwing/Muslim bulldust.
Many of us are also at the stage of preferring to be dead rather than be even tainted with the barbarity that is islam. But we will not die alone and we do know who the enemy are.
Even if Muslims gain a majority in this country it will be no walkover as we will not go quietly as did the victims of the holocaust.
If our government does not defend our way of life then we will and whatever it takes will suffice.
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 8, 2006 7:26 AM
yeah i was expecting this.. i thought "what are his mates going to say?"
and the hole's getting deeper.. if there are "no Australian values, just univeral ones" then why fly a flag for islam at all? wouldn't the universal ones that this bozo is touting outweigh islam's as well as Australia's?
idiot. 2 faced lying idiot.
at October 8, 2006 7:33 AM
and true, ive never been forced to pray to allah 5 times a day or memorise the koran.. bloody goose.
Posted by: frank_incensed at October 8, 2006 7:46 AM
or to be taught it takes 16 guys to rob one taxi driver...etc.
Posted by: frank_incensed at October 8, 2006 8:47 AM
I think we can give this advisory board the flick now, it's painfully obvious they're off their rockers...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at October 8, 2006 9:05 AM
"We want an Australia which is like a fruit salad with a nice juice in it, not a mega fruit juice."
Which is exactly what years of aggressive multiculturalism has given Australia.
Not a melting pot. A fruit salad.
Celebrate the difference. Unity through diversity.
What utter bullshit!
Posted by: Anthony at October 8, 2006 9:22 AM
Australia is indeed a Muslim country. We practice Jihad to spread our ideology, rather than being pacifists. We have been on Jihad more than anyone else in the world. We are the only people who turned up on time for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. The only question is - which sect of Islam are we? The answer is Mu'tazilah. It is time for Australia to join the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and reform Islam from within, instead of throwing stones from without. We also need to go on a Jihad to wipe out the non-Mu'tazilah sects of Islam. See www.mutazilah.org for the rest of the solution.
at October 8, 2006 9:35 AM
We need to study Japan and see how they have preserved their cultural identity. Japan is still nearly 100% Japanese, and 99% Shintoist/Buddhist. My perception is that the muslim presence in Japan is nil.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 8, 2006 9:59 AM
"300 000 Muslims in a country of 20 million"
by payingattention
Why are they even being listened to? Muslims have far too much influence for their numbers. Could the propensity for violence be the main reason they are even heard? If Australains would just unite themelves the problem could be manageable. Australia probably has more crocodiles than Muslims.
I have a idea, feed the Muslims to ...
Posted by: Pelayo at October 8, 2006 10:22 AM
"We would like to remain in this country as citizens like anybody else, but with cultural individuality preserved," he said.
Nice oxy-moron "Dr." Ali. I'm pretty sure individuality, isn't an attribute of culture.
"The description projected by the article in The Australian totally misrepresents the noble character of the Holy Prophet who was sent as a model to humanity".
I wish he would further elaborate on the ways a murderous pedophile like Muhammad is a "model to humanity".
The back peddling in the article by Dr. Ali is horrible, when last week it looked like he actually stood up against the blind, ignorance of islamists in Australia. But hey, you can tell how well threat and intimidation tactics can work if you are a good dhimmi.
Posted by: YankeeinNederland at October 8, 2006 10:33 AM
Crikey! I think Pelayo may be on to something...
Posted by: YankeeinNederland at October 8, 2006 10:35 AM
Ok,its time to pour on the goading, it seems to be having the desired effect. Warning: goading may be hazardous to your health, but so can donuts so who cares? Anyone who thinks the muslims will up and throw away or even modify their religion/death cult to appease the Infidels is seriously mistaken.
Go Australia, keep your values don’t turn muslim on us!(sarc)
at October 8, 2006 10:53 AM
Crocodiles are a protected species and while you can wrestle with them you cannot poison them.
Anyway no really fair dinkum aussie croc would eat a Muslim, they have far better taste and prefer japanese tourists(more spice).
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 8, 2006 10:53 AM
One point missed by us all is the fact that this pathetic attempt, like all attempts to soften the harshness of the Koran, was doomed to die from the threat of apostasy.
Thus it would appear that there is NO chance of finding a nonviolent, nonjihadic, nonsupremacist islam.
So do we wage war on the people and ignore the cause? Or do we take steps to control the first and eliminate the second?
The cause is the Koran. Who in the west will be brave enough to take this step? (don't hold yr breath)
This is the plague vector and no control is possible without disrupting the vector and its madrassa assistants.
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 8, 2006 11:00 AM
Pretty much along the lines of Quran 3:67, which states
3:67 Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.Just as they Islamized Abraham, Moses, Jesus et al, they are now trying to Islamize Australia. By his inane definition, all of us are Islamic. Posted by: Infidel Pride
at October 8, 2006 11:18 AM
Attention: Paul Edwards
Look Paul to be honest, you scare me.
We don't need another saviour of the world just at the moment. Hope the treatment works out for. you.
Best regards,
Concerned reader.
at October 8, 2006 12:18 PM
Western Infidel...actually a new prophet with a few blatant miracles could realy put dear old Muhammad deep in the proverbial. Seeing as he called himself the last prophet it would make him an obvious liar. When this is added to robber, rapist, murderer and paedophile it really makes you wonder which commandments he did keep. It may npot xound like much but it could be the thin end of a very useful wedge.
Of course, like Jesus or Jesus of Montreal he wouldn;t last long but the publicity atached to a few resurrections etc would make many muslims actually think if that is at all p;ossible. I just hope that he doesn't emerge from a tropical country as Lazarus never stopped whinging about the bits falling off and corpses decay so quickly in the tropics.
So, although I do not agree with the theology of Paul Edwards(nor any theology for that matter) his idea has some merit.
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 8, 2006 12:41 PM
MisIslamist, "actually a new prophet with a few blatant miracles could realy put dear old Muhammad deep in the proverbial"
A few miracles is not possible. But one (already occurred) is.
And I believe that all history has been faked by God. Mohammed was part of that fake history. God provided that history so that we would set up institutions to protect against deceptive warfare. It is a valuable lesson. If we'd learnt from Mohammed in the 1930s, instead of coming desperately close to defeat, we would have been prepared. We must fight wars using the same tactics as our enemies.
at October 8, 2006 12:50 PM
americaningermany, "How do you throw stones from without?"
Throwing stones from outside. Everyone here is just throwing stones at the Muslims instead of getting inside Islam and showing them how to do it properly. Anglophones are great fixer-uppers. We fix the world. The rest of the (hopeless) world needs our help to fix everything, even their religion.
"The only people who turned up on time for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq??? What the hell is he talking about?"
The US was late to WWI and WWII. Britain failed to turn up to Vietnam. Canada and New Zealand failed to turn up to Iraq. Australia is the only country that behaved perfectly when defending the Free World.
"About the only thing I could make sense of was that they practice jihad to spread their ideology. Well, at least he admits it's an ideology and not a religion."
Ideology and religion are synonyms to me. If they're not, then just stick "God says" in front of the ideology, and hey presto, there's your religion. In this case, "God says to spread something similar to Australia's liberal democracy across the rest of the world, by force of arms if necessary".
at October 8, 2006 12:56 PM
Quote:"A few miracles is not possible"
Awww!! Geee!!*looks very disappointed*
err just how do you know this?
Paul I do not disagree with what you say about Australia and yes, many americans seem to think that they actually fought right through both wars rather than come in at halftime and unwillingly so.
But keep yr own personal religious views out of this place as there are many here of different faiths, including agnostics and atheists and we do not want distracting arguments as has happened in the past. We all have a common enemy,
Let us keep our sights on him.
at October 8, 2006 1:07 PM
A plague of Bogans on the Aussie Muslims I say!!
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at October 8, 2006 1:14 PM
Paul Edwards,
Americans are well aware of our history. Excuse us for not rushing out and attacking another country just because the French were in trouble again. WWI, not really our war. In WWII Japan attacked us and inexplicably Germany declared war on us shortly thereafter. We then adopted a Germany first approach to the war. Vietnam, why? To bail out the French again that’s why. I can say one thing, when America goes to war we don’t kill off whole generations in the process. WWII was a continuation of WWI with a few of the players shuffled. Notice that it was exactly one generation between wars 1918/1938? Don’t get me wrong I am a big fan of Australia, but if you want to win with a minimum number of casualties stick with us.
at October 8, 2006 1:25 PM
MisIslamist,
PE:"A few miracles is not possible"
"Awww!! Geee!!*looks very disappointed*
err just how do you know this?"
Read www.mutazilah.org
"We all have a common enemy,
Let us keep our sights on him."
Regardless of whether you are atheist/agnostic/Christian, if you are humane, you will help the Muslims get out of the deep hole they have dug for themselves. And the way to do that is to convert to Mu'tazilah (you don't need to change your behaviour at all). Work on the problem from within. Anglophones traditionally fix the world, now it is time for us to fix Islam. We've been waiting 5 years for them to reform themselves. It's not going to happen. We need to do it ourselves.
at October 8, 2006 1:40 PM
tgusa, "Excuse us for not rushing out and attacking another country just because the French were in trouble again."
The French are part of the Free World. In my opinion the Free World should stick together. The anti-subjugators.
"Vietnam, why?"
This was part of the struggle against communism. As per Mohammed's teachings, America leant forward trying to spread her own religion/ideology (capitalism - or more accurately, rational, humanist, non-subjugating government), rather than passively watching the Soviets expand.
"Don’t get me wrong I am a big fan of Australia, but if you want to win with a minimum number of casualties stick with us."
We do. That's why we went to Vietnam while Britain was hiding under the bed. And we went to Iraq when Canada and New Zealand were hiding under the bed.
at October 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Paul( I really do doubt that that is yr name) I will finish up by saying that I do not care what happens to Muslims as I see them as the plague rats of the 21st century. I will not say more here so as not to offend but I see no place for them in a modern world.
As for converting you must cease insulting people like that and keep your own ideas to yrself. Failure to do so will place you on ignore from more and more readers.
I personally find any talk of converting to be absolutely insulting and I do not give a fig how you feel about yr particular brand of theology as I have heard it all before and far too often.
This is my last polite comment.
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 8, 2006 1:56 PM
"In this case, "God says to spread something similar to Australia's liberal democracy across the rest of the world, by force of arms if necessary"."
The only trouble is, that doesn't work. Hugh has it right - you cannot kill Islam, you can only limit and contain it. We don't need to go on a Jihad, we simply need to shut out the Islamic world from the wonders of the West. Let them fester in their own sewer, while we carry on living life like it's meant to be lived. They can watch, and wonder, and wake up in their own time; not in ours.
at October 8, 2006 2:16 PM
redwine, "We don't need to go on a Jihad, we simply need to shut out the Islamic world from the wonders of the West. Let them fester in their own sewer, while we carry on living life like it's meant to be lived. They can watch, and wonder, and wake up in their own time; not in ours."
The Iraq war produced Iraqi blogs like this one:
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
where we got to find out that there are pro-war Arab Muslims who are IDENTICAL TO US! It was via this blog that I first found out about the Mu'tazilah. I believe we have an obligation to help these pro-freedom Arab Muslims. We should empower them. They are our allies. We shouldn't just find a way (not practical anyway) to let them rot without disturbing us, we should try to help them. Saddam used to order the rape of Iraqi women. Do you really want to leave those poor women to be raped? Did your mother teach you to protect women? Did she make an exception for Muslim women? Please try to help these people like Ali, Mohammed and Omar on "Iraq the Model". Everyone has a right to the same freedom that you have. It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak.
at October 8, 2006 2:40 PM
"Do you really want to leave those poor women to be raped?"
Emotional blackmail is NOT an argument. There is tyranny and oppression the world over, but it is not for the US taxpayer to save everyone from it. It's enough for a government to protect the rights of its own citizens without galavanting off around the world to protect the rights of everyone else. To do that requires vast sums of taxpayer money, the purpose of which is meant to be for the protection of the nation taxpayers. If there is an external threat, then it needs to be met head on and dealt with decisively, but anything beyond that is not a function of government. It's far better to put engrgy into living well, raising the standard of living and quality of life, which is a form of leading by example. I believe in leading by example. A coerced mind is not a mind that has been won over.
The Arab mentality that you talk of? I would much sooner welcome them into the West to live in the Liberty of the West. Having them them leave the sewers they now live in, will speed up the transformation of the middle east far more than any bomb or bullet.
Posted by: redwine at October 8, 2006 3:02 PM
redwine, "There is tyranny and oppression the world over, but it is not for the US taxpayer to save everyone from it"
Why not? It was French heavy-lifting that brought a form of democracy to the US. This is the trouble with nationalism - your empathy stops at the border. You care more about American dogs than Iraqi women. It is a gross religious failing. If your religion stops you from caring about those of other nationalities, then you've got a bad religion.
I care more about the ITM brothers in Iraq than I do about anti-freedom Australians. My care is based on ideology, not race, religion, sex OR NATIONALITY.
at October 8, 2006 3:27 PM
"This is the trouble with nationalism - your empathy stops at the border."
What makes you think that I don't care? Of course I care, but the simple fact is, you can't save everyone on the planet. It's a never ending and impossible task. If you want to act like Zorro or Superman, and save everyone, then do so on your own money,and not on mine. I'll spend my money where I consider it important to spend it, and you spend yours where you consider it important, which is saving foreign women from rapists, by the looks of it. And I am not a nationalist, btw.
Posted by: redwine at October 8, 2006 3:40 PM
StillFedUp, "have you noticed that WHATEVER the USA/westernworld DO OR DON'T DO it's always a mistake?"
That depends on who you listen to. I listen to the Iraqi bloggers who are overjoyed at having been liberated.
"we go to iraq, and we were wrong"
Opinion in every country was divided. In Australia it was 57% in favour of liberating Iraq, 36% in favour of institutionalized rape.
"we don't go in sudan and we are wrong"
Sudan should be on the list of countries to topple, but I don't think any action should be taken until Iraq has settled down.
"aren't the muslims saying they are big warriors and stuff? let them kill their tyrants."
They tried that in 1991. 100,000 people died (count them) without achieving a damn thing. It is technically impossible for civilians to overthrow a properly-organized military. They get mowed down by helicopters.
"I would rather help (with SUPPORT and not TROOPS) places like cambodia, laos, myanmar and other troubled PEACEFUL BIDDIST countries that are unfortunately under wrong governments than those UNGRATEFUL SPITEFUL and SUPREMACIST MUSLIMS"
It is troops that are required to fix those countries you mentioned. They should be put on the list of countries to topple. Not right at the moment though. It is strategic to topple countries one at a time, starting with the enemy countries, before we start into neutral dictators.
"do you relly think that in iraq or iran the "majority" (as people like yourself say) wants freedom etc?"
Yes they do. The Iraqis turned out to elections in greater numbers than Americans turned out to US elections. And the Iraqis had to brave the terrorists to cast their vote. They are a beautiful people and I am so happy to see them getting purple fingers.
"the majority WANTS TYRANNY."
Even if that were true, which it isn't, we should install a "dictator" such as Ali from Iraq the Model. That way Iraq gets the highest standards of civilization - rational, humanist, non-subjugating government - even though it's not a democracy. Or simply run Iraq as a colony. Or get Japan to run it as a colony. Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. Everyone has the right to live in freedom (rational, humanist, non-subjugating government - not necessarily democracy).
"planning to leave iran"
There are decent Iranians waiting for the free world to come and liberate them. This woman (click on the picture in the bottom left):
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352747&TOCID=2083225413
doesn't appreciate being lashed. I believe we have an obligation to protect her. Just because she is distant, just because her nationality is different, just because there are a lot of Muslims in the area - is no reason to ignore her suffering. If you have an ounce of charity - send troops. Geostrategically.
at October 8, 2006 3:53 PM
Paul Edwards,
You sound like a freedom spreading person and I can appreciate that but surely you know that it can’t be rammed down someones throat. Is freedom for everyone? I couldn’t say but I do know it must be fought for. Ho was no outright Red until he was pushed into their camp. The French after WWII were feeling mighty low having the need for the rest of us to get their country back for them. They began committing atrocities in Vietnam and when Ho asked us for help he was denied. These were the pre CIA days of the OSS. Did we feel sorry for them? Maybe, but I think it was probably the beginning of our ignorance that has led us to where we are today. Just how free are the French? From the look of things it seems we have trouble in Europe once again. Regarding this global battle with communism, where were we when Chang needed help against Mao (Red Chinese)? When the Hungarians rose up against their Soviet masters? Opp’s more of the same ignorance. I do agree that America and Australia have been historically aligned, to our mutual benefit. Hey, look at a map; we have them in a crossfire. Now, find Iraq, interesting location. Think about our first ground attack on the Nazis, Europe? No, muslim countries in Africa where the Nazis felt quite at home. Maybe these guys should form their own muslim anti jidad army like the Irish Brigade of WWI. Recruit other like minded muslims from around the world. If I see true resistance I might not be so suspicious of everything they do. The French finally came forward against their common enemy only after they were reasonably sure we might win. It was a German Officer however that was responsible for turning a rag tag army into what would be the victorious Continental Army. Funny how everything is linked in some way.
at October 8, 2006 3:58 PM
Celebrate the difference.
Unity through diversity.
Freedom is slavery.
2 + 2 = 5
Posted by: germaninamerica at October 8, 2006 3:58 PM
redwine, "Of course I care"
If you care, send troops. It's the best bang per buck in aid that you can get anywhere in the world.
"but the simple fact is, you can't save everyone on the planet."
Not all at once you can't. But you can save them one country at a time, which is what you should be doing.
"It's a never ending and impossible task."
It is not never-ending. Europe is now secure. And it's not impossible. All the hard work has been done by our ancestors in WWI and WWII. We just need to finish the job. There's mostly only tinpot dictators standing in the way. We need a blitzkrieg to take them out. One at a time.
"If you want to act like Zorro or Superman, and save everyone, then do so on your own money,and not on mine."
Unfortunately the troops that are required to do the job are not allocated based on ideology but are instead allocated based on nationality. This is the same as the rest of the government's spending too. It would be better if the pro-war people in a country were able to make use of the country's military, even when they are in a minority. Until that becomes a reality, I am forced to try to get 51% of each country in the Free World to agree to unleash its troops.
at October 8, 2006 3:59 PM
"We would like to remain in this country as citizens like anybody else, but with cultural individuality preserved," he said.
Get out. And take the like minded ones with you.
OK?
at October 8, 2006 4:10 PM
tgusa, "You sound like a freedom spreading person"
Very much so. I've dedicated my life to liberating the world.
"and I can appreciate that but surely you know that it can’t be rammed down someones throat."
This is a theory that has held people back from doing anything. Afghanistan and Iraq have proved that this is not the case. Freedom can be installed by force of arms.
"Is freedom for everyone? I couldn’t say but I do know it must be fought for."
Australia didn't need to fight for its freedom. It was granted by the British in 1901 after a referendum. We've fought to maintain that freedom though, and spread freedom elsewhere in the world. Although truth be told we had freedom even as a British colony. It depends on how you define "freedom". Iraq was free the moment the statue fell. Even though it was effectively an American colony, it was free. Why was it free? Because the people were NOT SUBJUGATED by the US forces, even though they were OCCUPIED. "freedom" is not "independence from Britain/US". "freedom" is "not subjugated" or "living under a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government". Iraq was only ever going to replace Paul Bremer with something worse. Iraq had the highest standard of civilization under Bremer.
"where were we when Chang needed help against Mao (Red Chinese)?"
I'm not that familiar with it, but I believe Chang wasn't using his forces effectively and wouldn't let a US general take charge of them.
"When the Hungarians rose up against their Soviet masters?"
Unfortunately the potential cost of a war with the Soviets was too high. We just needed to wait for that one. Since Pearl Harbour, the US has acted virtually flawlessly. Doing whatever was geostrategically possible to spread freedom. The exception being abandoning our South Vietnamese allies to commie gulags.
"Maybe these guys should form their own muslim anti jidad army like the Irish Brigade of WWI."
It's called the "Iraqi Army". And the queues to sign up are endless, as they have been ever since the statue fell. Even when so many have literally died in those queues, before they even got their first paycheck - or even the job!
at October 8, 2006 4:12 PM
StillFedUp, "i believe those iranians are 10-20%, frankly not many, they think that freedom means the right to womanize, drink adn all those silly thing but once on the vote they will vote SHARIA etc"
They already have sharia. They're sick of it. If the majority of them wanted sharia, there would be no need for the mullahs to rig the elections. They would allow freedom of speech and free elections. But instead the mullahs are trying to suppress the Iranian people. I believe that Iran is a pro-western country waiting to happen. But we'll never know until we liberate the country. Whatever percentage are in favour of being liberated are the people we should care about. They're there, waiting for us. We just need to empower them. Even if they're a minority, which I sincerely doubt, they have a right to be free. Liberate them and then put them in charge of the armed forces.
at October 8, 2006 7:37 PM
I'll believe it when I see the burka at footy.
Until then, these psychotic goatherders should get their arses back to the dunes that birthed them.
And bloody stay there.
Posted by: tuckunderbreak at October 8, 2006 9:30 PM
“Waiter – waiter, my fruit salad has lumps of putrid raw turnip in it!”
Posted by: Timbo at October 8, 2006 10:28 PM
"We want", "we want" -- who gives a rat's bum what you want? Muslims in Australia should remember that they are a small minority, confined to their own self-created ghettos for the most part.
If they continue to push, they won't like the results.
Posted by: Deecha at October 8, 2006 11:28 PM
"If you care, send troops. It's the best bang per buck in aid that you can get anywhere in the world."
I don't have the right to send troops, and neither do you. The Troops have the job of securing the rights of the citizens of their nation. They are not a tool to be sent off willy nilly, by you, or anyone, to do your bidding. If you want to help people in other countries, then go there and help them, but don't put other peoples lives on the line for the sake of your grand schemes. You have no right to do that.
Posted by: redwine at October 9, 2006 12:26 AM
Paul Edwards
If you are a member of the Mu'tazilah sect, speak for yourself. None of us are Muslims, and don't plan to be. And just because we have a bunch of cretins managing the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that we are behind it; Shia vs Sunny, Pashtun vs Hazara/Tajik, or other internecine Islamic violence is a good thing.
I saw the website you linked to, and it's simply yet another kook site.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 9, 2006 1:32 AM
redwine, "I don't have the right to send troops, and neither do you."
Yes I do. As a citizen of a democracy I have a right to make use of the troops that I paid for.
"They are not a tool to be sent off willy nilly, by you, or anyone, to do your bidding."
Says who?
"If you want to help people in other countries, then go there and help them, but don't put other peoples lives on the line for the sake of your grand schemes. You have no right to do that."
Yes I do. And the troops themselves WANT to be sent to help others. Read this:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/06/why-we-fight.html
You're the one holding these people back for no reason at all.
at October 9, 2006 5:42 AM
Infidel Pride, "If you are a member of the Mu'tazilah sect, speak for yourself. None of us are Muslims, and don't plan to be."
Most Australians follow the tenets of Mu'tazilah.
"And just because we have a bunch of cretins managing the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that we are behind it;"
The policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is fine.
"Shia vs Sunny, Pashtun vs Hazara/Tajik, or other internecine Islamic violence is a good thing."
No, what's a good thing is anti-non-humanists defeating non-humanists.
at October 9, 2006 5:44 AM
I've been reading this and I think perhaps we should fight fire with fire. What if we start a new "faith"? Something goddess-worshippy, with a woman being carried out on a litter and "worshipped" by men, ideally chanting that silly bit from Monty Python and whapping their foreheads with holy books by Betty Friedan and Susan Faludi. We'd commence with a sacred feast of bacon cheeeseburgers cooked in a Jack Daniels reduction and dispense beer. Incidental music would be provided by The All Black Lab Squeak Toy Choir.
Perhaps the immoderates would WANT to leave after that...
at October 9, 2006 9:35 AM
Ah! Greetings Americaningermany, noble accolyte! :)
"And you shall know them by their joy, laughter and barbecue sauce mustaches, and there shall be much peace and chewy-toy squeaking..." -Lox 10:31
*sigh* I can dream about peace, right?
Posted by: GoldieLox at October 9, 2006 10:40 AM
Mother Ecclesiastica, "Australia is a Christian Country. Our laws are Christian laws."
No, we are a secular country. Our laws are based on Aristotle's Golden Rule plus science. They have nothing to do with Christianity. Plus we have a tendency to get involved in any war that we can possibly get into. Again, nothing to do with Christianity, but more in line with what Mohammed preached. Mu'tazilah is the answer.
"Muslims should leave Australia before they are interred in preparation for deportation or Executed for High Treason."
One thing new that Christianity did provide was "love thy enemy". Are you doing everything you can to love the Muslims? Or do you only know how to throw stones at them?
Posted by: Paul Edwards at October 9, 2006 11:37 AM
americaningermany, "Are muslims doing everything they can to love us?"
No they're not. And that's the problem. They're in a BAD religion. They need to be converted from it, by force. But it is easier to convert them to a different sect of Islam rather than to completely abandon it, and it is easier to convert them to that from within.
"If you believe in Christian scriptures, then why have you converted to islam?"
Neither the bible nor the Koran is the word of God. But both books have valuable lessons for us to incorporate.
"Love thy Enemy, never meant that you had to be a fool and go like a lamb to the slaughter."
Sure. But you should do everything you can to avoid harming your enemy unnecessarily. And if you look at it objectively, the Muslims are doing an INSANE thing. They are banging their head against a brick wall (the US military) trying to get Christians to say "I'm a Muslim". The compassionate thing to do is to simply say "I'm a Muslim - now what?", and then set about teaching Muslims that all people are equal regardless of religion - ie stop being a religious bigot. You need to take into account that these people are centuries behind the West in understanding. And help them!
"Defending your home and family is not against Christian beliefs."
Or rather it shouldn't be.
at October 9, 2006 1:38 PM
GoldieLox, I'm completely seduced by your new sect, and will help carry the sacred litter, if I can do it with one hand while holding my bacon-cheeseburger with the other. Once we set the litter down, I'll go back for the beer. (Heineken, while the Dutch are still allowed to brew it?)
Posted by: MP at October 9, 2006 2:15 PM
Paul -
You wrote "The compassionate thing to do is to simply say "I'm a Muslim - now what?", and then set about teaching Muslims that all people are equal regardless of religion - ie stop being a religious bigot."
So let's say I try that. Then if I'm spotted on the street, unescorted and wearing a mini-skirt on my way to meet Mr. Lox for dinner, or I'm at a picnic with a glass of beer in my hand, or at a pool in a bikini and taking in the all-too-short summer, what do you think would become of me?
I don't think any of the women here are bigots, just concerned women. I try very hard to treat everyone with respect and don't care what others believe or practice until they force it on me. Really, if they all did their own thing and didn't care what we did, do you think we'd even have this page?
Posted by: GoldieLox at October 9, 2006 2:25 PM
Greetings MP!
Oh sure, one-handed munching, litter-carrying and beer-sipping are completely allowed in Loxatarianism. And Heineken is an excellent choice! The only rule would be peace and kindness to one's fellow man.
BTW - Loxatarianism is clunky, I must admit. Suggestions for a name, anyone?
Posted by: GoldieLox at October 9, 2006 2:36 PM
GoldieLox, "So let's say I try that. Then if I'm spotted on the street, unescorted and wearing a mini-skirt on my way to meet Mr. Lox for dinner, or I'm at a picnic with a glass of beer in my hand, or at a pool in a bikini and taking in the all-too-short summer, what do you think would become of me?"
You have every right to do so. And anyone who would prevent you from doing so needs to be forcibly converted to either a sect of Islam that tolerates such things, or into a different religion which tolerates such things.
"I don't think any of the women here are bigots, just concerned women."
I agree.
"I try very hard to treat everyone with respect and don't care what others believe or practice until they force it on me."
I care what others practice. I care if people believe that the Quran is the word of God and that they are therefore allowed to beat their wives. And I believe we should force our beliefs onto them. Force people to renounce the Quran as the word of God. It is too dangerous to allow people to indoctrinate children that this book of violence is the word of God.
"Really, if they all did their own thing and didn't care what we did, do you think we'd even have this page?"
We should care about other people's human rights, rather than just "doing our own thing".
at October 9, 2006 2:50 PM
Paul -
I wasn't trying to sound callous in my earlier post; my point was that we're not bigoted, just alarmed.
As far as human rights - I wish we could globally stop abuses, but I just don't think we can, realistically. All we can do is enforce our laws and forbid abuses on our own soil(s). I'm horrifed when I hear about abuses anywhere on the globe and do my best not to give nations that condone cruelty my business. It may not sound like much but at least they won't get my money.
at October 9, 2006 3:20 PM
I meant horrified, but if it's possible to be "horrifed" by an abuse, yeah, I'm that too.
Posted by: GoldieLox at October 9, 2006 3:21 PM
"They are not a tool to be sent off willy nilly, by you, or anyone, to do your bidding."
Paul Edwards: Says who?
Says the constitution and all principles that respect individual rights. The purpose of an army is to defend the rights of the nations citizens, nothing more and nothing less. That is, its job is to deal with external threats to the nation. Where no threat exists there is no job for it to do. You want to take the military, where no threat exists, and put them all in harms way for the sake of your grand imperialistic schemes. That's the kind of thing Hitler did. In fact, I would consider it treasonous for you to do that. People fund pay the military for the purpose of securing their rights, so that they can sleep peacefully in their beds, and here you come along and take them away from their purpose which ultimately reduces the nations ability to defend itself, putting everyone in greater danger. In other words, you would sacrifice the lives of others to your own grand schemes - like someone who walks over dead bodies to get what they want. There are a few expletives I'd like to say to you but, due to the respect I have for this website, I won't.
at October 9, 2006 3:31 PM
"Force people to renounce the Quran as the word of God."
You can hold a gun to peoples heads and make them do all manner of things. It's control by fear, and some even take it as far as feeding people head first into plastic shredder machines, but it doesn't change peoples, and it's their minds that need to change.
YOu are going down that same path that produces a Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: redwine at October 9, 2006 3:38 PM
Did Paul Edwards ever wear the uniform of the military he would toss about with such ease?
Eisenhund did.
And Eisenhund says that if one is not about to fight to secure their own freedom and rights, why should he?
A little kid breaks toys he's given, yet cries when his sand castle is washed away by the surf.
People only appreciate things they earn through their own blood and sweat. A goodly portion of the Third World and arguably all of the mohammedan world illustrate this.
If Paul Edwards wants to form his own modern Lincoln Brigade and gad about the world as some freedom-securing flying squad, my hat's sincerely off to him, and I would just as sincerely wish him the best of luck. However, I don't know about other nations, but when Eisenhund raised his hand and swore his oath, it was to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Nothing about mohammedans in Iran, Pygmies in the Congo, or the oppressed masses anywhere else.
Make no mistake, if you're a threat to my nation and its people, I'll save you the inconvenience of coming to me. I'll visit you in your country and kill you in your living room or your bed, whichever is more convenient and safer for me. I will not risk having someone perforate my ass like a colander to secure something for you that you make no effort to secure for yourself, with the caveat: unless ordered to, of course.
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Eisenhund at October 9, 2006 5:37 PM
GoldieLox, "I wasn't trying to sound callous in my earlier post; my point was that we're not bigoted, just alarmed."
That's correct. Most Westerners are not religious or racial bigots.
"As far as human rights - I wish we could globally stop abuses, but I just don't think we can, realistically."
We can. Our ancestors have done all the hard work. Mostly there's only tinpot countries to finish off. And by playing our cards right, we can finish them off one at a time. It takes 3 weeks per country. Just don't disband the old military.
"All we can do is enforce our laws and forbid abuses on our own soil(s). I'm horrifed when I hear about abuses anywhere on the globe and do my best not to give nations that condone cruelty my business. It may not sound like much but at least they won't get my money."
That doesn't help the people who are suffering. Remember the Golden Rule. If you were being raped by your own government, would YOU want someone to come to your rescue?
at October 9, 2006 6:08 PM
redwine, "Says the constitution"
If the constitution says you can't end holocausts happening elsewhere, you need to update it.
"and all principles that respect individual rights."
This is the whole point. Individual rights aren't being respected in places like Saddam's Iraq. When the US soldiers liberated Auschwitz they said "never again".
"The purpose of an army is to defend the rights of the nations citizens, nothing more and nothing less."
If you see such a limited purpose for the army, I don't, and neither do those who liberated Auschwitz.
"You want to take the military, where no threat exists, and put them all in harms way for the sake of your grand imperialistic schemes."
It's not imperialistic, it's anti-imperialistic. Saddam et al are the imperialists (dictators).
"That's the kind of thing Hitler did."
No, it's the kind of thing that the allies did when they liberated France in WWII.
"People fund pay the military for the purpose of securing their rights, so that they can sleep peacefully in their beds, and here you come along and take them away from their purpose which ultimately reduces the nations ability to defend itself, putting everyone in greater danger."
Liberating the world also has the benefit of turning enemies into allies, making the free world more secure.
"In other words, you would sacrifice the lives of others to your own grand schemes"
You're the one happy to see Saddam sacrifice the lives of others. I'm trying to stop him, and others like him.
PE:"Force people to renounce the Quran as the word of God."
"You can hold a gun to peoples heads and make them do all manner of things."
And if you don't want to live in fear, you need to get people to stop believing the Quran is the word of God.
"You are going down that same path that produces a Saddam Hussein."
No, others are going down the path that produces a Mohammed or Osama Bin Laden. I'm trying to stop them from doing so. The cure is to stop people from believing, and from indoctrinating children, that the Quran is the word of God.
at October 9, 2006 6:16 PM
Eisenhund, "Did Paul Edwards ever wear the uniform of the military he would toss about with such ease?"
No, but these men did:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/06/why-we-fight.html
And if you're not made of the same stuff as them, then don't sign up. These are brave men who are willing to defend the rights of the oppressed. These are men who took "never again" to heart.
"And Eisenhund says that if one is not about to fight to secure their own freedom and rights, why should he?"
The Iraqis did fight to secure their own freedom and rights. In 1991. And they were mowed down by helicopters. 100,000 people died. It is technically impossible to overthrow a modern military. You should know that. They needed help. The same help that the Americans were given by the French during the revolution. The same help that the Northern Alliance were given. Now that the Iraqis have been given that help, they are VOLUNTEERING in HUGE NUMBERS to join the new security forces. There's an unlimited supply of new recruits, and they are bravely fighting for their freedom. Hell, they're even bravely lining up. They get blown to smithereens by terrorists before they've even picked up their first paycheck, or even gotten the job.
"People only appreciate things they earn through their own blood and sweat."
And the Iraqis are doing just that, now that they've been given a fighting chance of actually winning for a change.
"Nothing about mohammedans in Iran, Pygmies in the Congo, or the oppressed masses anywhere else."
Your ancestors said "never again" at Auschwitz. And besides which, America becomes more secure by liberating these people and extending the free world.
"Make no mistake, if you're a threat to my nation and its people, I'll save you the inconvenience of coming to me. I'll visit you in your country and kill you in your living room or your bed, whichever is more convenient and safer for me."
All dictators have an ideology incompatible with that of the free world, and are a potential threat.
"I will not risk having someone perforate my ass like a colander to secure something for you that you make no effort to secure for yourself, with the caveat: unless ordered to, of course."
All of our militaries are under civilian control. My goal is to convince 51% of civilians in every country that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to institutionalized rape. Didn't your mother teach you to protect women? What is your religion? You need a better religion - one that makes you care about women being raped, no matter what their religion, race or nationality happens to be.
at October 9, 2006 6:25 PM
"And if you're not made of the same stuff as them, then don't sign up."
-Paul Edwards at October 9, 2006 06:25 PM
Apparently you missed "Did Paul Edwards ever wear the uniform of the military he would toss about with such ease? Eisenhund did."
Thirteen years. Infantry and more...ah...specialized duty.
Real easy to sit back as an armchair commando and make policy statements, citing the words of others who have been there to counter someone else who has also been there.
I was and am made of the same stuff and did sign up. More than once.
Too bad you can't say the same.
I have no problem with soldiers with the same opinion as you as they've demonstrated a willingness to lead by example. You might want to think long and hard about your presumptuous moral right to send others to do things you are apparently not willing to do yourself.
And yes, my parents did teach me to protect women. They did not, however teach me to be Batman, running around looking for trouble. In case you haven't noticed, here in America, we have 300 million people. There are over 6 billion on this planet. I have better things to do than waste my time, money, and health helping people who won't help themselves because they insist on holding on to savage cultures.
When it comes to religion, mind your own damned business. I have never claimed allegience to any religion on this site, in any of my postings which are far more numerous than yours. I don't have to be religious or an atheist, to know right from wrong, but it seems my personal view on religion allows me to be a lot more realistic about how to effect change in the world. I would rather my country lead by example in conduct and standard of living than have it waste the lives of some of its best and brightest trying to drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.
Like I said, if you want to do that Mr. Tough Guy, gather together some like minded fellows, gird your loins in camo fatigues, grab a rifle and have at it. But don't run your mouth at someone like me who has put his ass on the line like you're my moral better. I signed up and swore an oath to kill my nation's enemies, nothing more and nothing less.
I led by example, not by proselytizing on an internet site like some sort of Red Army commissar.
Thus endeth my complementary self-justification to you, sir.
Posted by: Eisenhund at October 9, 2006 8:11 PM
Eisenhund, "Real easy to sit back as an armchair commando and make policy statements"
That is exactly what civilians do. The vast bulk of our countries are not in the military. We are civilians. We pay for the military and we get to choose when to deploy it, because we live in democracies, not military dictatorships. If you aren't willing to be under civilian control, then you shouldn't have signed up. That's the way it works. Those who pay for the military get to choose when to use it.
"I have no problem with soldiers with the same opinion as you"
Basically only soldiers have a right to an opinion.
"You might want to think long and hard about your presumptuous moral right to send others to do things you are apparently not willing to do yourself."
If it ever comes down to being dependent on me personally being willing to join the army in order to liberate the rest of the world, then I will do so. Until then, our societies work best if we each do what we are best at.
"And yes, my parents did teach me to protect women."
So what are you going to do to protect this woman:
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352747&TOCID=2083225413
Click on the picture in the bottom left.
"They did not, however teach me to be Batman, running around looking for trouble."
It's not looking for trouble, it's protecting fellow human beings.
"In case you haven't noticed, here in America, we have 300 million people. There are over 6 billion on this planet. I have better things to do than waste my time, money, and health helping people who won't help themselves because they insist on holding on to savage cultures."
The women who are being raped and abused by dictators are not insisting on holding on to savage cultures. They would prefer to have a government that protected their rights instead of violating those rights. The US and allies have FAR superior firepower to those tinpot dictators and you should have a damn good reason if you're going to leave these poor people to be enslaved by their dictators. And they WILL help themselves if you give them a chance to do so.
"I would rather my country lead by example in conduct and standard of living than have it waste the lives of some of its best and brightest trying to drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century."
The lives are not wasted. They are spent helping kindred spirits. There are people in every dictatorship who want to have a country similar to the US, but are being held back by their dictators. And there's not a damn thing they can do to overthrow their dictator. You should know that civilians have no chance at all against a professional military.
"Like I said, if you want to do that Mr. Tough Guy, gather together some like minded fellows, gird your loins in camo fatigues, grab a rifle and have at it."
I have hired guys tougher than me who are happy to be under civilian control.
"I signed up and swore an oath to kill my nation's enemies, nothing more and nothing less."
Currently the US is liberating those who also happen to be enemies. This is the correct strategic thing to do. But eventually the US will run out of enemies and it will be time to start knocking over neutrals. Please be ready to leave the armed forces by that time, as we need soldiers who are happy to protect the weak.
"I led by example, not by proselytizing on an internet site like some sort of Red Army commissar."
You're not leading by example. If you were leading by example you would be advocating to deploy the military to protect people from human rights abuses. I'd rather you did that than serve in the military. There are others who are happy to take your place. We don't have a shortage of military personnel, what we have is a shortage of people willing to deploy the military. This war will be won or lost by civilians. The same as Vietnam was tragically lost by civilians who got sucked in by a Soviet psyop.
at October 10, 2006 4:03 AM
Eisenhund:
This guy's seriously deranged. Visit his website and you'll see what I mean.
BTW, I've always wanted to thank you for your service to this Great Nation. You are a true Patriot.
Posted by: CGW at October 10, 2006 6:17 AM
-CGW
Thank you. I appreciate the acknowledgment. I'm done arguing with Paul Edwards as he seems to be one of these people who overlooks the fact that soldiers are citizens and taxpayers as much as he is, not just robots to be depolyed as one would program a Predator drone. Where he gets the idea that we are on this earth to sacrifice our lives for everyone else as he sits on his ass, safe and cozy at home, protected by the soldiers he would send to other parts of the world to protect people who do not appreciate it, is beyond me. Maybe he should look up some of the various enlistment oaths from nations around the world. I'm sure he'll not find one that entreats the soldiers of any country to protect everyone else in the world as all this does is degrades a nation's military in its ability to protect its own charge.
All men may be created equal, but what they do afterwards makes all the difference. As for a self-righteous coward like him trying to denigrate my service and call into question my courage, both physical and moral, well the cold, hard fact of life is he hasn't earned the privilege of me giving a shit about what he thinks. He asks me what I've done to help people? I stood up and put myself between the people who paid me and those who would do them harm. In any case, the question can be batted back to him. What has he done, besides advocating sending others into harm's way, to do something he has neither the stomach nor the stones to do himself? Leading by example is not talking about it and trying to get others to do it. That's what bin Looney and his croneys do as well as every other piece-of-shit imam and mullah sending terrorists against us.
Maybe I'm against sending out our men and women to get killed for others who don't seem to appreciate it because I was one of the former as were (and are) many of my friends and relatives.
Maybe he's so gung-ho in favor of risking these people's lives because he wasn't one of them.
But as I told him, I'm done answering his foolish moralizing and almost Gnostic view of international affairs. If he wants to liberate the world, he should grab a gun and do it himself. That's not America's military's job, nor the job of the fighters in his country. I led by example. I signed up to defend my country and people, and I did read and understand my oath.
No further attempts at besieging his funny little keep will be forthcoming. Time to isolate and bypass.
Posted by: Eisenhund at October 10, 2006 12:09 PM
Eisenhund, "I'm done arguing with Paul Edwards as he seems to be one of these people who overlooks the fact that soldiers are citizens and taxpayers as much as he is"
I'm not the one saying you don't have the right to an opinion on whether the troops should be deployed or not. You're the one saying that I don't have the right, as if we live under a military dictatorship.
"Where he gets the idea that we are on this earth to sacrifice our lives for everyone else"
It's taking a risk to protect the weak. If you're not happy to do that, don't sign up.
"to protect people who do not appreciate it"
They do appreciate it. Didn't you see all those Iraqis risking death from terrorists to get purple fingers?
"As for a self-righteous coward like him trying to denigrate my service and call into question my courage, both physical and moral"
I didn't question your courage. I question your morals that you don't care about protecting the weak if they're not Americans. As if non-Americans don't matter. You probably care more about American dogs than Iranian women. It is disgusting.
"In any case, the question can be batted back to him. What has he done, besides advocating sending others into harm's way"
I have done exactly what I want YOU to do. I'd rather you were an advocate for liberating the oppressed instead of a soldier. Let someone else take your place. I'd rather you worked at McDonalds and paid for troops of the ilk that I gave you a link to earlier, and gave them permission to go in and protect the weak, instead of treating foreigners as sub-human.
"Maybe I'm against sending out our men and women to get killed for others who don't seem to appreciate it"
Foreigners don't speak with one voice. Some appreciate being liberated, some don't. You should be in favour of unleashing the troops to help those who do appreciate being liberated.
"Maybe he's so gung-ho in favor of risking these people's lives because he wasn't one of them."
I would happily trade my life for world freedom. But it's never come down to that. The reality is we have plenty of people who are willing to do the bidding of the civilians who pay them. What we have a lack of is civilians wanting to help liberate foreigners.
"If he wants to liberate the world, he should grab a gun and do it himself."
That is technically impossible, as you well know.
"That's not America's military's job, nor the job of the fighters in his country."
If it isn't, it should be. We need soldiers who believe in "never again", not soldiers who believe in "again and again".
at October 10, 2006 12:37 PM
No further attempts at besieging his funny little keep will be forthcoming. Time to isolate and bypass.
Give it up, cur. You are a self-righteous coward who apparently gets off sniping at his betters, those of us who do something rather than just talk about it, and everyone can see that.
We're done here.
You are dismissed.
Posted by: Eisenhund at October 10, 2006 1:28 PM
Eisenhund, "You are a self-righteous coward who apparently gets off sniping at his betters, those of us who do something rather than just talk about it, and everyone can see that."
As I have explained, the bottleneck is not insufficient people willing to join the military. The bottleneck is insufficient people willing to deploy the military to liberate the oppressed. You are part of the problem.
at October 10, 2006 4:25 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)