The test for exclusion is simple : is the person muslim ? Is his name Cat Stevens or Sir Iqbal Socranie ?

God bless the West; hear that Ibrahim ?

No sharia, no jihad, no entry, no exposure,no multiculturalism, nada.

And if you're here musilman leave.

Posted by: dgene at October 19, 2006 2:52 PM

"She said people could be denied entry for several reasons including improper travel documents, prohibited activities or intent, smuggling of contraband, criminal activity or history, immigration violations and watch list match or national security concerns."

Nine out of nine ain't bad...

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at October 19, 2006 2:55 PM

Indeed hundreds of imams from all over the world have visited and continue to visit the United States," Klundt said.

Why?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 19, 2006 2:59 PM

well this is a start, the list should include all muslim clerics who preach from the koran, as it incites violence against people.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 19, 2006 3:01 PM

United States stops entry of British Muslim leader

The US should apply the same standards to Muslim clerics coming to the US that apply to non-Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia. They should be kept out. No exceptions.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 3:11 PM

Looks like Iblis Hooper will have to turn his attention from Tunisia back to this.

As for those hundreds of imams who come to the US each year-ban them too. If one imam preaches one anti-West sermon to about 200 followers and 10 percent buy into that you get 20 potential terrorists. Multiply that by those hundreds and what do you get? One hell of a mess. Who needs these pigs preaching treason?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 19, 2006 3:20 PM

The whole thing was, in the topics and guests, scarcely a step up, in its import, than any of those Interfaith Gatherings with which we are familiar, where the Muslims present their own views, heavily laced with taqiyya, turn aside questioning with another dose of the same, fortified with tu-quoque, and a good time is had by all. And nothing whatsoever of real substance comes out, or is learned by the innocent Infidels.

This grand affair is being conducted by Peter Bergen, famous for having interviewed Al Qaeda, and therefore for being a "terrorism" expert, whcih does not make him an expert on all the other, much more important things one needs to know about -- the tenets of Islam and the attitudes to which those tenets naturally give rise, Jihad and the dhimmi system, the varied instruments of Jihad and, finally, the internal weaknesses within the Camp of Islam that might usefully be exploited in order to defend the non-Muslim world. Peter Bergen knows nothing of any of this. But he will continue to dine out, for quite some time, at universities and as a "consultant" on terrorism (the days of these consultants on "terrorism" and their so-called expertise, both trivial and often irrelevant to larger matters, should be numbered).

Another party involved in this degringolade is Alexis Debat, a believer in the wonders of "Muslim economic theory" which is short on economics, but long on Islam. He thinks, apparently, that we have much to learn from this part of Islam, and when he senses Islam under attack, is quick to invoke the Islam-is-not-monolithic mantra, constructing something, and then demolishing that same something, which only a fool would have argued in the first place. It is precisely because "Islam is not a monolith" but at its core divides the world between Believer and Infidel, that one has argued here for the idiocy of the goals established by Bush for Iraq, and the further idiocy of ignoring those sectarian and ethnic and other divisions within Islam --- you see, "Islam is not a monolith" -- when he should be attempting to exploit them to the fullest.

If one of the invited participants to this conference was kept out even by our State Deparment, that tells you something about this Conference. I suggest that the ghost of Harold Acton insist on receiving back his villa of La Pietra, near Florence, in order to turn it into a cultural center dedicated to preventing the spread of Islam in Europe, and the threat that such a development would pose to the art, literature, free and skeptical inquiry, that is much of the legacy that Harold Acton, thought he was protecting and promoting when he turned over that fabulous place to NYU.

Too bad Acton did not leave heirs who might have insisted that the intention of Acton himself was not being met by the university (but what can one expect when the twisted-mouthed, man-in-dramatic-black Tony Judt is put in charge of the "Remarque Institute" -- can you just imagine what Erich Maria Remarque, and at least one of his wives (Paulette Levy Goddard) would have made of Tony Judt, and his comprehension of Europe and the need to defend it from Islam?

Stop giving things to universities. They don't deserve it. Stick to those who are in fact acting as protectors, defenders, and true transmitters of true culture. They are not to be found, at least not the way they might once have been expected to be found, in universities. They are elsewhere.

Posted by: Hugh at October 19, 2006 3:29 PM

A little more on Peter Bergen:

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Peter Bergen and Lawrence Wright

Peter Bergen, consistently miscomprehending Islam -- go back and check the record of rich embarrassment -- is hardly alone. All sorts of writers on Bin Laden or on Al Qaeda purvey inside dopesterism and piquant details about Bin Laden's wives (including the one who ordered lingerie and ran around in a track suit, no doubt trying to hold onto her man who jettisoned her for a 15-year-old Yemeni girl -- a full six years older than little Aisha, the favorite wife of the man Bin Laden aims to emulate). They appear to think that these details about Bin Laden as son, Bin Laden as brother, Bin Laden as would-be leader of mujahedin in Afghanistan, Bin Laden as either the great leader and inspirer, or alternatively, as the great organizer of Al Qaeda, are illuminating of the “root causes” of the Jihad. So this is all breathlessly packaged and then appears, in tantalizing bits, in GQ or The New Yorker or Vanity Fair. But the reader learns nothing, absolutely nothing, about Islam, about the texts that have consumed Bin Laden, that animate him and his fellows. It is all Reader's Digest-level stuff, though the income from being a "consultant" or an "expert" to this or that news channel certainly kicks one's economic status up several rungs.

On NPR I listened to a voice that sounded as if it belonged to someone particularly naive. He was talking all about Bin Laden. I heard him, as I pulled out of the grocery store's parking lot, discussing how before Al Qaeda the various terror groups were all "nationalistic" in their desires. Yes, how true. Not the desire to eliminate the Infidel state of Israel, but rather the desire by so many Arabs and Muslims to show their solicitousness for the "legitimate rights" of the "Palestinian people" (whose actual lives are a matter of complete indifference to other Arabs and Muslims, as one can see by how they are not permitted to integrate into or become citizens of any Arab country but Jordan). And how very "nationalistic" are the declared aims of Lashkar-e-Taiba, or a hundred other groups.

Yet this group is hellbent on killing Hindus not only in Kashmir but all over India -- for the goal is not that of helping the "legitimate rights of the Kashmiri people" but of establishing, rather, rule by Islam over first Kashmir, and then over other parts of India as well. Over all of India. Nothing "nationalistic" about it. This is of course true of other conflicts also that are generally regarded as nationalistic: for example, the war of Muslim northerners against the Christian, predominately Ibo, people of what was to be the independent state of Biafra. The Muslims were conducting, as Col. Ojukwu said, a "Jihad" against the non-Muslims. The Abu Sayyaf terror group in the Philippines has not stated any "nationalistic" aims; its aim is to end Christian rule over Muslims, and eventually, to extend the area over which the Muslims dominate. And the same is true with the Muslim attacks on Christians in Sulawesi, in the Moluccas, in East Timor, and on Hindu interests in Bali.

But Lawrence Wright was convinced that it was only when Bin Laden came along that a "nationalist" impulse, found here and there, was given a unifying framework, the framework of Islam. Had Wright been more than a mere reporter, a reporter of what so-and-so did or said, he might have spent a summer reading widely in the doctrine and the history of Islam. If he had done so, the things that he cannot quite grasp would have become clear. Instead, he passes on his confusion to his readers.

Then the speaker said something about how Bin Laden was "rejecting modernity." This "rejection of modernity" stuff is all over the place. It's nonsense. Muslims do not reject any of the gewgaws produced by the modern West. Airplanes, television, the Internet, satellite television, Western medicine, the whole shebang. If by "modernity" the author means, instead, the universal civilization of the West, that is now to be found everywhere. This is reflected not in those gewgaws but in the belief in the emphasis placed on the individual and on rights guaranteed to individuals. And if by "modernity" one means the very idea that a government's legitimacy is to be located in the expressed will of citizens, rather than in the revealed desires of Allah some 1350 years ago and his unalterable law of what is to be forbidden and what is to be commanded, then yes, you could call Bin Laden and all the other perfectly orthodox Muslims engaged in terrorism as "against modernity" -- but it would distract and confuse those who need to know that what Bin Laden is against, and what he is for, is not different from what a Muslim warrior was against and for in 1804 in West Africa, in 1600 in Hindustan, in 1453 in Constantinople. He is for exactly what any of a long line of those engaged in violent Jihad have wanted: the rule of Allah upon earth.

Finally the interviewer (Terry Gross? Someone else? I can't remember) gave the title of the speaker's book -- "The Looming Tower" -- and his name, Lawrence Wright. I had heard the name, and I wondered what made Lawrence Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker, think he could write a book about Bin Laden without immersing himself in the texts that Bin Laden refers to constantly, that Bin Laden has taken as the source for his entire being, and to which he makes constant appeal in everything he says or does.

In today's New Duranty Times, there is a story about Grisha Perelman and a possible proof of Poincare's Conjecture. What, I wondered to myself, would one think of the author of that piece had he confused the mathematician Poincare with that other Poincare, the political figure. Not much. But every day "terrorism experts" and "Bin Laden experts" and "Al Qaeda experts" flogging their wares, or delivering themselves of some well-recompensed banality on some nightly news program ("Well, Al Qaeda could be behind this. It bears all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda operation. Then again, it could be some entirely different group. Hard to tell") make a similarly glaring error. No one cares.

But these Bergens and Wrights, in getting the most obvious and most important things wrong, are akin to that writer about Perelman and Hamilton and the Poincare Conjecture, had he, that reporter, described for his audience "the very versatile Frenchman Poincare, not only a mathematician of the first rank but also the President of France just before and during the First World War, who later served as the Prime Minister as well. Amazing what politicians used to be like." Or so I could so easily imagine -- for what's in a name, Henri or Raymond, they both end in Poincare, how much attention exaggerated to detail do you require, and what does it matter?

And what does it matter if Peter Bergen tells an interviewer that if he could ask Osama Bin Laden one, just one question, that question would be "Where in the Quran can you find justification for killing innocent civilians?" -- with all the colossal ignorance that that question betrays? And what does it matter if Lawrence Wright, staff writer for The New Yorker, where once upon a time William Maxwell and Katherine White and E. B. White, and James Thurber, and Brendan Gill, and Philip Hamburger, and many others -- grown-ups all, and supported by a cast of contributing grown-ups (Niccolo Tucci, I. B. Singer, Vladimir Nabokov, Jorge Luis Borges, John Cheever, John Updike, S. N. Behrman, Joseph Mitchell, J. D. Salinger, and many others, hundreds of others), proceeds to tell us, to tell the NPR audience and his readers, that Bin Laden was at war not with Infidels, but with "modernity," and that before Bin Laden all Muslim terrorists were merely "nationalists"? What does Wright think the nation-state means in Islam? What can he conceivably think it means?

Henri, Raymond, what's the difference. Bin Laden is bad, so what's the difference if we don't quite pinpoint what it is that makes him bad, and that makes him and so many uncountable others bad? What does it matter if we don’t care to discover what makes their ranks endlessly replenishable as long as people continue to believe, and to find their entire mental universe both created and limited by the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira? After all, now we know about his wife jogging in her track suit, and how he treated his kids, and how that stuff -- "modernity" -- managed to get his goat.

Oh God, I cried. Is there to truth no duty?

A George-Herbert moment.

Was I overreacting? Was I wrong? Should I simply acquiesce in having to be faced every day with evidence of shallowness, ignorance, and stupidity by those who presume to instruct us on matters that affect our physical and civilizational survival?

Or do I, just possibly, have a point?

What do you think?

[Posted by Hugh at August 16, 2006 08:02 AM]

Posted by: Hugh at October 19, 2006 3:33 PM

"The U.S. government's action in this case should not be construed as a blanket U.S. policy..."

I wish it were. That blanket sounds very comfortable

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at October 19, 2006 3:42 PM

"The U.S. government's action in this case should not be construed as a blanket U.S. policy against Muslim religious leaders."

Why don't we have a blanket policy?

When you enter a room full of snakes, you don't ask which ones are poisonous.

Posted by: Malinois at October 19, 2006 4:02 PM

Work is slow so I am on my favorite website once again.. making the world unsafe for jehadists..

I wish it were. That blanket sounds very comfortable
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig

I'd call that a SECURITY BLANKET. :-)

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 4:03 PM

"The U.S. government's action in this case should not be construed as a blanket U.S. policy against Muslim religious leaders. Indeed hundreds of imams from all over the world have visited and continue to visit the United States," Klundt said.

On a more SERIOUS note: WHY are *HUNDREDS* of imams visiting the United States? How many Rabbis and Priests are visiting SOWdi arabia and Pakiland? And iran?

The Pope needs to go to visit his Christian Brethhren in Pakiland and in UNDOnesia too.. give them some moral support.

Since we all know that would be bad for his safety.. WHY are these imams safe in our lands?

Last night I watched game 6 of the NLCS.. As the Mets faced elimination there were fans holding a banner that read NOT IN OUR HOUSE!!

My friends.. WE face elimination not on the baseball field or the gridiron.. nor do we face elimination on the football pitch.

WE, my dear friends, are facing elimination at the hands of the dhimmi fools who lead this nation! Their inaction spells our doom. They do their utmost to prevent us from acting on our own. As anyone knows who has a basic knowledge of jurisprudence.. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE **AS OUTLINED BY THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL LAW**. King W himself has stated that preemption in the face of an imminent is legitimate. THEREFORE I say to you.. these time-honored words.. BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

We shall never surrender! Death before dishonor!

VIVE LA RESISTANCE!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 4:11 PM

In the old west, a bad guy was often shot.

Now we want to know why they are bad?

My guess is, that in the old west, they knew better than we do.

Just a guess.

Posted by: credit man at October 19, 2006 4:20 PM

Alexis Debat.

Here's the summation of,"Muslim economic theory."

"Go suck off some successful western country."

By the way Alexis, you got any more of that stuff you're smoking?

Posted by: credit man at October 19, 2006 4:25 PM

This week, President Bush hosted the sixth annual Iftar dinner at the White House, marking the end of Ramadan, to which many Muslim clerics and representatives were invited.

At the occasion of last year's fifth dinner, Bush said:

Our distinguished guests represent the millions of Muslims that we're proud to call Americans, and many Islamic nations are represented here that America is proud to call friend. We welcome the representatives from many countries with large Muslim populations. I want to thank you all for coming to celebrate an honored tradition of the Muslim faith, and wish you a, "Ramadan Mubarak."

Posted by: remote_control at October 19, 2006 4:39 PM

" Indeed hundreds of imams from all over the world have visited and continue to visit the United States," Klundt said. "
That is unfortunate news indeed.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 19, 2006 5:00 PM

KAOSKTRL, my post above yours gives one important reason why.

Posted by: remote_control at October 19, 2006 5:27 PM

It's pretty simple, really. The "extremists" are the Muslims who follow Mohammed--the Mohammedans!

Pass laws, not to ban the religion Islam, but to ban the violent political tumor that appended itself onto Islam--Mohammedanism. Those who do not reject Mohammed--all his sayings and doings--are extremists, by definition. If that turns out to be all of them--in their pig-headed willful ignorance--so be it! Their individual choice.

Serve notice to the world that we understand who and what the deceiver Mohammed was, even if most Muslims don't seem to. We say Mohammed is not Islam!

Demand they reform themselves by dumping that self-serving political/imperial exploiter, the hijacker of Islam, enemy of true and peaceful Muslims--Mohammed, and by keeping the merciful and uplifting teachings of Moses and Jesus (whom they consider to be Islamic prophets).

All followers of Mohammed must leave our shores forever--in well-deserved shame.

Posted by: Stendec at October 19, 2006 5:34 PM

Assalmau Laikum all,

What about me, ...can I come on holiday to the Amerekie?

Posted by: Naseem at October 19, 2006 5:44 PM

No.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 5:56 PM

Hell NO!

Posted by: Infidel_Dog at October 19, 2006 5:58 PM

Now you have the short answer and the long answer.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 6:00 PM

You may not. Is there any part of what has just been stated that you do not understand?

Posted by: backwoodsgranny at October 19, 2006 6:01 PM

Re: Bush's sixth annual Ramadan dinner with Muslims invited to the White House: in last night's monologue on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Conan, in setting up one of his jokes, mentioned this 6th annual dinner put on by Bush to invite Muslims to the White House to mark the end of Ramadan, then Conan interrupted the flow of the joke set-up to ask the audience, "Isn't that great?" -- to which the audience applauded, whistled and cheered in agreement and approval.

Such disconcerting stuff, with a million more similar examples available, makes me want to set up a PC Watch site -- particularly as Jihad Watchers seem to persist in minimizing the dominance and sociocultural prevalence of PC, with the auxiliary Dhimmi Watch functioning more or less as a "look at the shenanigans of that small minority of stupid elites -- I'm sure glad the whole world is waking up like we are!" site, rather than as the sobering and appalling "Good God, why is the vast majority of our fellow Infidels around the world still so myopic!?" site it should be.

Posted by: remote_control at October 19, 2006 6:05 PM

I'm sure naseem doesn't have a spelling problem on her "death to America" placard!

Posted by: Infidel_Dog at October 19, 2006 6:05 PM

"But this is another indication that it is not so easy in Britain to find a "moderate" leader."

We are more likely to find a living Passenger Pigeon somewhere.

There have been some examples on this site where moderates are threatened or otherwise hounded out of leadership roles.

Show me a Moderate Muslm Imam and I'll show you a temporary employee.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 6:07 PM

Why Naseem,

You're very welcome to come here to Washington state where I live. There are mountains, lakes and forests... lonely remote places which take your breath away...

Cougars, bears, coyotes... I'm sure I can arrange for you to see it all. :)

Posted by: atheling at October 19, 2006 6:11 PM

Remote_control, The closest thing I have found to a PC Watch site is a site called Tongue Tied.

http://www.tonguetied.us/

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 6:11 PM

Now, do not be rude to nassem. I’m not sure where Amerekie is but I welcome you to visit America. If you decide to visit Tampa; I will pick you up at the airport. While here you can share in the a few real American experiences. We can go mud bogging, catch a game at Beefs O Brady’s a local Irish Pub (they do have non-alcoholic drinks), if you come on a Friday we can get BBQ at my favorite BBQ joint, I go every Friday. We can catch some rays at Fort Desoto, it was rated as Americas best beach. No trip to Tampa is complete without a trip over the sunshine skyway bridge. One word of warning, you might not want to go home. We don’t have many of our muslim visitors return home, at least not by choice. Come, enjoy and decide for yourself why anyone would want to destroy this town. I’d bet you would completely change your mind about us evil infidels.

Posted by: Ronin at October 19, 2006 6:18 PM

"What do you think"?-Hugh

I think many of the people you are annoyed by because of their happy-horseshit superficiality are on anti-depressant medications. So many are probably in "therapy" and they approach much with that pseudo-scientific view. You are a bit of a grumpy fellow who sees his demons as something that have to be fought on a daily basis, you see inner conflict as important to creativity. Many of these people who don't know the difference between Poincares and don't care to see differences, don't care to face conflict, but bury it in "therapy" and medications. You are listening to the Medications speaking when you hear them on NPR and elsewhere.

I have no doubt that someone like Esposito is on anti-depressant medications and has been in "therapy". People like you and Robert are not of this superficial mind-set. However, much of what you guys are reading, hearing, and astonished by at The New Duranty Times and elsewhere are chattering bottles of antidepressant medications speaking through "experts".

Hugh, many are on happy-horseshit antidepressants. Bet my hunch on this. Meanwhile, let Hugh remain "Himself". "Himself" lives in reality-and that's good.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 6:19 PM

"I'm sure I can arrange for you to see it all," said the spider to the fly.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 6:21 PM

Ronin, I'm sure nassem would love to visit Doggie Beach at Fort Desoto, I know I do once a year.

Posted by: Infidel_Dog at October 19, 2006 6:28 PM

Hugh Fitzgerald is a grumpy fellow who counters it with a good sense of humor. (It's all very Irish-isn't it?). But the Espositios, who you find so astonishing in their crap, are on medications, Hugh. Bet on it. That's the explanation for what you consider the bizarre conclusions of these people. I'm right, man. I'm a preceptive SOB. Trust Frank on this one. I'll trust you on your comments.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 6:30 PM

Ronin

Just b'cos you're bummed at your own wife (aren't we all?) is no reason to call Naseem over ;->

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 19, 2006 6:40 PM

Infidel Pride-

I think Naseem maybe sexy in a ditsy kind of way. Every time I read her posts I think Muhammad may have been right about women-or at least about women like Naseem. What a piece of work she is....

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 6:45 PM

"I'm sure I can arrange for you to see it all," said the spider to the fly.
Posted by: Pelayo

Lol, I would never hurt anyone I invited but that was funny. I am well practiced at both socializing and if necessary hunting muslims but I did not have a sinister motive for my offer. I really believe showing naseem real Americans going about their daily lives will do more to end the mistrust than our spats on-line. I had a few muslims show me around some of their countries, I was treated well in most, harshly in others. Although, I distrust the religion of islam I do not fear muslims nor do I think they are all violent, murderous scum. Somewhere there really is a moderate, I will keep searching until I find him.

Just b'cos you're bummed at your own wife (aren't we all?) is no reason to call Naseem over ;->

Posted by: Infidel Pride

Also, funny and not a light threat, she is or will be shopping for a new husband at some point. It will not be me however. I am islamaphopic and have yet not started my 12 steps toward change.

Posted by: Ronin at October 19, 2006 6:48 PM

frank
are u on medication - if so what type - uppers - downers - levelers - please tell - is this what gives u the super "preception" - man I could do sum o' that!!

Posted by: johnmac at October 19, 2006 6:49 PM

johnmac-

No medications. None. Elaborate on the reason you say that. You have to be specific in your thoughts so I know what you are talking about.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 6:52 PM

hey frank ma man
what gives - you got the hots for Naseem - which side o' the fence ur ye on man - got the urge fur a little muslamana eh ? tutu frank - get a grip man what happened te yer preception ?

Posted by: johnmac at October 19, 2006 6:52 PM

johnmac-

I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure. Naseem, huh? I think she's a ditz, but I detect that she's not in a place where she can really be herself. She's not happy. I'll leave it at that.

I am perceptive about some things-but women always surprise me. I'm not an arrogant man. I know what I don't know and don't pretend to know what I don't understand. Let's leave it at that.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 7:03 PM

but I detect that she's not in a place where she can really be herself. She's not happy.
By Frank

But I beg to differ, your argument doesn't hold.
With one word I can prove you wrong,

"Amerekie"

With this one word naseem has proven herself pro-islam and anti-American.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Posted by: Infidel_Dog at October 19, 2006 7:19 PM

"The U.S. government's action in this case should not be construed as a blanket U.S. policy against Muslim religious leaders. Indeed hundreds of imams from all over the world have visited and continue to visit the United States," Klundt said.

WHERE THE H*LL does this Klundt person COME OFF by explaining our US POLICIES to OUR SWORN AND DECLARED ENEMIES?!

Ms. Klundt.. As a Taxpayer and Legal Resident of the United States of America I demand to know why your government allows these dangerous individuals - who truly are more dangerous than the most vicious of gang bangers - free and unfettered entry to these shores?? Please be aware that what you do today will cost people their lives in REAL and TANGIBLE TERMS. Don't worry, Ms Klundt.. they'll come for you last. i promise. I am sure they have read your good intentions toward them.

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 7:44 PM

Naseem...Come visit duh_swami in sunny and gold filled California USA. If you are pretty bring two million dollars American. If you are ugly, bring four million. I can show you where the gold is...Once you can confirm deposit of the money, I will give you contact info.

Posted by: duh_swami at October 19, 2006 7:45 PM

Pelayo

The link is to Political Correctness Watch site

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DP111 at October 19, 2006 7:45 PM

Although, I distrust the religion of islam I do not fear muslims nor do I think they are all violent, murderous scum. Somewhere there really is a moderate, I will keep searching until I find him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 19, 2006 7:45 PM

What about me, ...can I come on holiday to the Amerekie?
Posted by: Naseem

Errr.. what do you look like? Care to post a burca-free picture for us to look at? Ya got nice hooters I hope? Maybe I can get you in a rap video if you wear a thong and ya got a lil back..

Or maybe I could take you on a little drive through New York City.. first we'll head downtown.. to the World Trade Center.. ooops.. we really shan't go there, shall we?

Or would you like to see the Holocaust Museum perhaps?

I guess you better stay home after all.

FYI it's spelled THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 7:50 PM

Our distinguished guests represent the millions of Muslims that we're proud to call Americans, and many Islamic nations are represented here that America is proud to call friend. We welcome the representatives from many countries with large Muslim populations. I want to thank you all for coming to celebrate an honored tradition of the Muslim faith, and wish you a, "Ramadan Mubarak."

Strange.. I could SWEAR Mr. Bush has problems with simple English words such as "noocoolear" - but he seems to have no problem AT ALL with "Ramadan Mubarak".

It's all a matter of practice and where your heart is, King George!

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 7:53 PM

Strange.. I could SWEAR Mr. Bush has problems with simple English words such as "noocoolear" - but he seems to have no problem AT ALL with "Ramadan Mubarak".

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 19, 2006 8:02 PM

Too much time on your hands, Ronin, too much time Posted by: Infidel Pride

I am semi retired, so I have some extra time. I try and use it well. I could go out and start riots, make unending demands or attempt to pick up young girls but I'm not muslim.

Posted by: Ronin at October 19, 2006 8:19 PM

Infidel_dog-

All love and hate are personal. It only appears to be "Amerekie". Hate begins for some personal reason and then gets projected out on some group. That's the way I see it.

--------------
In many ways Islam is a drug with its easy answers to complex problems. It's the Islam belief-system fix. Reality is hard to face with a lot of people: for Esposito types, people at the New Duranty Times, Muslims upset by facts, etc. Some people escape reality into belief-systems, some escape to anti-depressants, or other drugs. In any case, perception of reality is altered.

I'n not arrogantly stating this as fact. It's a a belief, a hunch about the common groundlessness re reality and facts with people like Esposito, etc. and many Muslim clergy, Jihadists.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 8:33 PM

Linus would like that kind of security blanket. If he doesn't get one, Lucy is going to slug GW.

Posted by: SCV at October 19, 2006 8:36 PM

DP111, Thanks, PC Watch is now in a folder in Favorites.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 9:01 PM

Ronin, When I posted the "said the spider" thing I felt that you may have meant it another way, but I clould not resist.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 19, 2006 9:07 PM

Y'all be nice to naseem now. She'll need someplace to stay after Pakistan's turned into the world's largest parking lot.

Inshallah!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 19, 2006 9:19 PM

Pelayo, I took no offense nor did I mean any. I try and find humor even when the subject doesn’t make it easy to find. Life is to short to be angry, watchful, intense, driven and occasionally even kind, but not angry. Good night my friend.

Posted by: Ronin at October 19, 2006 9:21 PM

Time for my usual half-bottle of Xanax.

Posted by: Hugh at October 19, 2006 10:41 PM

You could have done us a favour, by accepting him in and then detaining him for oh i say about the next 100 years

instead we get to keep the git here

thanks america, we stand shoulder to shoulder, and you folks cant even aid in removing the jihaddist scum from our shores...;-D

Posted by: Taranus at October 19, 2006 11:38 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Thank you for some interesting replies. Anwer always asid that he would take me to USA but Allah's decision to take him early meant that cannot happen.

However I have been encouraged by some of you...Shukaria. If I do get permission to come over ...(I may be applying in the new year)...and I may well take up peoples like Ronin's offer...I'm sure he means me no harm....and if he does ...it will be as Allah has written.

I'm afraid putting up a picture of me will be impossible...this is simply too risky....I think the anonnimity of this forum keeps us all safe...me included.

Posted by: Naseem at October 20, 2006 3:47 AM

'USA'. Well done Naseem! Now try 'p e o p l e'.

Posted by: western infidel at October 20, 2006 4:05 AM

If this had happened to an ordinary believer with clear past, I would call that unjust. But clerics should be suspected, even if they have clear past.

Posted by: deusvult at October 20, 2006 6:34 AM

That PC Watch blog cited above is seriously deficient: I checked its October 2006 archives -- and not one mention of Bush's White House dinner honoring the end of Ramadan. That is a glaring omission of a major instance of the pernicious dominance of PC in Western culture.

Posted by: remote_control at October 20, 2006 6:45 PM

The US should apply the same standards to Muslim clerics coming to the US that apply to non-Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia. They should be kept out. No exceptions.

Posted by: Frank at October 19, 2006 03:11 PM

Good point! And since Saudi Arabia does not allow churches, no mosques should be allowed in USA. I know what you are thinking.. yeah! like that is ever going to happen .. but why should it not?

Posted by: Alert at October 23, 2006 4:54 PM

Strange.. I could SWEAR Mr. Bush has problems with simple English words such as "noocoolear" - but he seems to have no problem AT ALL with "Ramadan Mubarak".

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 19, 2006 07:53 PM

.. and this islam butt-kisser wants to be known as a 'war president', fighting, with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as 'friends and allies', a 'war on terror'. Go figure!!!

Posted by: Alert at October 23, 2006 5:42 PM

However I have been encouraged by some of you...Shukaria. If I do get permission to come over ...(I may be applying in the new year)

Posted by: Naseem at October 20, 2006 03:47 AM

Interesting how short an attention-span some on GW have. After all this woman cursed the 'infedel medicine' when Ahmed died not to mention 'taqiyya' posts against 'kafirs' living in 'Dar-al-harb'. I don't understand why any American would invite anyone from the country that:

- butchered Daniel Pearl on camera.
- bombed WTC in 93.
- funded 9/11.
- killed French-engineers.
- gunned down nuns...

Posted by: Alert at October 23, 2006 5:51 PM