| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dewey speaks of a "moral obligation on the part of the United States" to allow resettlement by Iraqis here. There is no such moral obligation. No one has a right to come here or to be here. We have no obligation to admit a large population of Iraqi Muslims that will undoubtedly include many who hold to the ideology of jihad and Islamic supremacism -- there are at present no mechanisms in place to screen out such people, but there should be. Such mechanisms, of course, would by their very nature be imperfect: a revised immigration application questionnaire, for example (upon which I have been working), would only be a means to allow for prosecution and deportment of those who answer falsely, to put the world on notice that even peaceful activities for the advancement of Sharia are not tolerated in the U.S., and to lead to other steps that will be necessary for national security and for the protection of societal and Constitutional principles.
Meanwhile, "officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program." The UN is one thing, but there is absolutely no reason why the State Department should not favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program. This is an overwhelmingly Christian country, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rooted in Judeo-Christian assumptions. This is part of our national character, and no one should be apologetic about it.
For these and other reasons, the analogy with Vietnam fails utterly. The Vietnamese were Christians, or Buddhists, and neither group brought with it a ready-made societal model and an imperative to replace the culture and mores and laws of the society to which they were coming.
But no one in Washington has the courage to speak about that.
"Iraqi exodus could test Bush policy: Total expected to exceed quota for refugees," by Michael Kranish in the Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.The official US policy has been that the refugee situation is temporary and that most of the estimated 1.5 million who have fled to Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere will eventually return to Iraq. But US and international officials now acknowledge that the instability in Iraq has made it too dangerous for many refugees, especially Iraqi Christians, to return any time soon.
Ellen Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of state for refugees and migration, said that while the Bush administration does not think resettlement is needed for most refugees, its policy could rapidly change.
"It is quite possible that we will in time decide that because of vulnerabilities of certain populations that resettlement is the right option," Sauerbrey said. While acknowledging that the administration originally set a quota of no more than 500 Iraqi refugees, she said the president has the legal authority to admit 20,000 additional refugees.
Eventually, specialists said, the number of Iraqi refugees settling in the United States could be vastly higher.
But few Iraqi refugees have yet to be allowed to resettle here, due partly to finger-pointing between the State Department and the United Nations over who is responsible for determining which Iraqis need to be resettled. Sauerbrey said she has been pleading with the United Nations to do its job of surveying refugees.
"We have not been getting referrals from [the United Nations]," she said, pointing to the office of the UN high commissioner for refugees. "They have got to do a better job."
Judy Cheng-Hopkins, the United Nations assistant high commissioner for refugees, responded to such criticism by saying that the UN needs more funding from the international community to identify possible refugees. But she predicted that the numbers would be large because most refugees now see little chance of returning to Iraq.
She said many want to settle in the West, including in the United States, because their life in Iraq "is pretty much gone."
"A great majority would be dreaming of resettlement elsewhere, in the West," said Cheng-Hopkins, who recently returned from a trip to Jordan and Syria to assess the extent of the refugee problem.
In particular, more than 120,000 Christians who have fled Iraq are unlikely to go home and about 100,000 of them want to come to the United States, where many have relatives, according to a group representing the Christians. A great many of the estimated 1.4 million Iraqi Muslims also are expected to try to resettle, many in the West, according to UN officials.
An effort by hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to resettle in the United States would put the Bush administration in an extraordinarily awkward position. Having waged war to liberate Iraqis, the United States would in effect be admitting failure if it allowed a substantial number of Iraqis to be classified as refugees who could seek asylum here.
Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey, who was President Bush's assistant secretary of state for refugee affairs until last year, said that "for political reasons the administration will discourage" the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States "because of the psychological message it would send, that it is a losing cause."
But Dewey said a tipping point has been reached that is bound to change US policy because so many refugees are convinced that they will not be able to return to Iraq. That tipping point was further weighted by Wednesday's report by the Iraq Study Group that called for the eventual withdrawal of most US forces.
"I think there will increasingly be a moral obligation on the part of the United States" to allow resettlement by Iraqis here, Dewey said. "That is the price for intervention. Similar to Vietnam, that obligation is just going to have to be fulfilled."
The US government has allowed about 900,000 Vietnamese to resettle here since the end of the Vietnam War.
But in recent years, the process of resettling refugees in the United States has moved very slowly. Last year, for example, the Bush administration requested funding for 70,000 refugees from around the world to be resettled here.
Of those, the administration wound up admitting only 42,000, due to lack of funding and inability to obtain security clearances. There were slots last year for only 200 Iraqis, nearly all of whom had applied for admission before the Iraq war.
Asked whether the United States has resettled any Iraqi who has applied for admission since the war began, Sauerbrey said, "If there have been any, it has been a handful."
She said more Iraqis probably would be admitted, but she cautioned: "Our refugee resettlement program will only be able to take a small number. Whether it is 500 or 20,000, it is a very small portion of the overall problem."
An association representing Iraqi Christians, the Michigan-based Chaldean Federation of America, estimates that about 100,000 of the 120,000 Christians who have fled Iraq have relatives in America and want to immigrate here. Amid growing sectarian violence in largely Muslim Iraq, Christians have faced killings, torture, destruction of churches, assassination of priests, and confiscation of property.
The group's executive director, Joseph Kassab, noted that after the 1991 Gulf War, the United States allowed a large group of Iraqi Shi'ites -- 12,000 by some estimates -- to immigrate here because they faced persecution from Saddam Hussein.
"Why can't they do the same thing for Iraqi Christians?" Kassab asked. "We are the byproduct of the action that was taken in Iraq, the bad part of it."
A supporter of the Iraqi Christian effort is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, which has long helped Jews resettle in America and views the plight of Iraqi Christians as similar to that faced by Jews during the Holocaust.
"There are few religious minorities in the world today as persecuted as the Iraqi Christian population, so we naturally identify with them based on our own history," said Mark Hetfield, a senior vice president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
Officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program. Any decisions regarding admission will be based on a family's vulnerability, not religion, officials said.
"The one thing we have to be very clear about is, if we were to admit only Christians, or at least a big majority of Christians and not other groups, this would just fuel the whole debate" about the West favoring Christians, said Cheng-Hopkins.
Kassab met on Wednesday with White House officials and said he received assurances that the plight of Iraqi Christian refugees will be reviewed.
Posted by Robert at December 11, 2006 7:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Foehammer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 11, 2006 7:39 PM
Some of Debbie S's contacts at DOD have said they had been working on this for quite some time now. I'm pretty sure it's a done deal. Only thing we don't know are the numbers. Going to be alot, and they're most likely going to Democratic strongholds in need of a population boost prior to next census.
Posted by: sonomaca at December 11, 2006 7:44 PM
If anything, I'd endorse bringing in those who have been overlooked by the entire iraqi situation, are vehemently pro-American, and are continuously massacred by ALL sects of islam in iraq, even the kurds:
The Assyrians.
They've shown to be VERY good Americans (there is a HUGE enclave of them here in central CA), assimilate very well, and quickly, make great merchants and are loyal to the point of pain. They also have NO fear of getting in militant mOslems faces to confront them on their lies, too.
But mOslems? Ummm, I'd want to screen those carefully even if I DID agree to such an idea.
Right now, I say not on my worst enemies life!
at December 11, 2006 7:46 PM
I can only pray for massive government red tape that drags the refugee process out longer than ever and that whoever seeks to come to the U.S. gets tired of waiting and goes somewhere else.
Posted by: 3812Michelle at December 11, 2006 7:49 PM
(addendum)
I must correct/add something...the Assyrians I mentioned ARE those very same ones mentioned as "Christians" in the original news article (just in case someone isn't aware of that).
But don't count on them being "democratic" strongholds...here, they're VERY "red county" areas.
at December 11, 2006 7:50 PM
The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable results, in Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities, that became inevitable, because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise, and naturally aggressive, not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein was undone by those American soldiers.
Having spent, or committed, close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place, having discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct, all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.
It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch, or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.
We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.
To those who say, as someone does in this article, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies, and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical, in every way, to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.
Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.
And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled. In Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But, given the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35, and given the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties, or running away, or selling the weaopns supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer -- it is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.
But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.
The response of those officers and men should be instructive.
Posted by: Hugh
at December 11, 2006 7:52 PM
If a screening process is put into place the Christians should be able to come in-at least they most likely won't cause problems. As for the Muslims-sorry, no admittance. Stay home and rebuild Iraq. Either that or set about annihilating one another. Jihadists need not apply to the US-we have too many as it is.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 11, 2006 7:52 PM
The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable results, in Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities, that became inevitable, because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise, and naturally aggressive, not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein was undone by those American soldiers.
Having spent, or committed, close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place, having discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct, all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.
It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch, or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.
We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.
To those who say, as someone does in this article, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies, and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical, in every way, to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.
Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.
And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled. In Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But, given the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35, and given the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties, or running away, or selling the weaopns supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer -- it is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.
But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.
The response of those officers and men should be instructive.
Posted by: Hugh
at December 11, 2006 7:53 PM
Waiting...
for Nariz to come by and drop a big, steamy, whopping pile of dung about how evil Christianity is...
because, it's the reason why there's evil in the world, you know...
Regarding "refugee status," I can see giving such status to actual refugees--those who are fleeing Islam and its penchant for murder and bloodshed. Muslims can find their nitch in any number of crappy Islamic nations in the Middle East. Not so for non-Muslims.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at December 11, 2006 8:11 PM
If a screening process is put into place the Christians should be able to come in-at least they most likely won't cause problems. As for the Muslims-sorry, no admittance. Stay home and rebuild Iraq. Either that or set about annihilating one another. Jihadists need not apply to the US-we have too many as it is.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
Yes! Agree with you, and Hugh.
They can rebuild their own country. They will never appreciate what they have if they don't have to fight for it.
Let's face it after WW2 there was no sudden influx of Japanese and Germans,,,other than perhaps war brides! And as stated they were not security threats.
Posted by: Gramfan at December 11, 2006 8:11 PM
Those who voted for Bush as Dhimmi of the year must be feeling smug.
Bush has a set of beliefs that don't correspond to ours. As time goes on, he becomes more wedded to them. This is a good argument for term limits. Perhaps presidents should not be allowed successive terms.
Second terms are often associated with mistakes of ego or arrogance or something by presidents.
To vote for a second term for a president, it should require that they have proven themselves exceptionally good.
Presidents do less damage in first terms, so a random choice may do less damage than someone who is even moderately good.
Its important to put this info out in other places. If you have a local paper that allows posting comments, add it to any relevant article at least once a week.
Columnists who advocate immigration can be tagged with this as well.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 11, 2006 8:23 PM
Taking in 100,000 Iraqi Christians is actually a good idea for the United States. We desperately need speakers and readers of Arabic to perform translations for American intelligence agencies and others, and as readers of this site know, moslem speakers of Arabic are simply not reliable. The Assyrians are also a group of people who have no illusions about the nature of Islam, and their experiences would be a valuable addition to the debate about global jihad.
Hugh is incorrect with respect to the Iraqi army, many of whose units contain former Peshmerga as well as secular Iraqis. The Iraqi army is actually doing a lot of fighting and dying in the fight against insurgents, and they are mostly fair with respect to the various religious and ethnic groups. The problem is that the Iraqi government won't let them go after the militias as they want to. The Iraqi police, on the other hand, are throughly penetrated by the militias, utterly hopeless. A military coup in Iraq might be the best outcome for the country at this point. Think Kemal Ataturk.
Of course no Iraqi moslems should be permitted to enter the United States, that would just be stupid.
Posted by: tvdog at December 11, 2006 8:32 PM
After State Dept word processed it:
"officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program."
What State Dept wrote first:
"officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Americans but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Americans over anyone in a resettlement program, or anything for that matter."
Carter Center Course for Dept of Dhimmitude (DoD).
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 11, 2006 8:33 PM
"Officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program."
Oh yeah! Because there is no religious discrimination in the Islamic world. Right?
Anyway, no mass numbers should be granted refugee status into the West. They need to stay there, and fight to fix things in the ME. More importantly, Muslims in the West should head to the ME, and bring with them some Western talent to that area of hell on earth.
Posted by: ofcourse at December 11, 2006 8:39 PM
There is a simple and absolutely OBVIOUS distinction here.
Muslims are fleeing Iraq because they are being attacked by other Muslims, and there are 21 other Muslim-majority countries -- predominantly Sunni or Shi'a depending on your preference -- that can absorb these people, societies that are a perfect fit for their ideology.
Christians are also fleeing attacks by Muslims, and they CANNOT get a fair shake in most Muslim countries. Therefore, they need to be absorbed by those countries where their rights can be protected.
That is an obvious difference in the situations of the two groups, and one the State Department can certainly address.
The ACLU will have a fit, and I don't care.
What we should be doing is putting the Arab League on notice that since they have been pouring jihadists and preaching this bedevilment in their mosques we expect them to help the Muslims who are fleeing as just responsibility for having allowed three solid years of Muslim-on-Muslim violance in the Cradle of Civilization.
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at December 11, 2006 8:54 PM
Sounds more like ethnic cleansing.
100,000 Republican minded Christians, who can speak and understand the enemy sound good to me.
Just think of the stories they can tell about their "peaceful Countryman".
We wouldn't have to finish rebuilding Iraq for them either
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 11, 2006 8:58 PM
I'll make this simple so the politicians can understand it. You've got to be joking! NO FRICKIN' WAY!
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at December 11, 2006 9:09 PM
can you say "powerless"? i thought so.
has anyone a very good idea of how to fight this and in what way?
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 11, 2006 9:34 PM
let the red tape roll on, while the UN and State Department bicker about who deserves what.. and with all the suicide killings, Iraq will be more people to populate this oil rich country.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 11, 2006 9:48 PM
My bet is that if American churches were asked to sponsor Iraqi families who are Christian then there would be plenty of room for them, and I think that would be good for all of us for many of the reasons stated. Bring 'em on, if history is any guide, they will make great and patriotic Americans.
Which leads me to Europe. The fat and happy (at least for awhile) Europeans are dependent upon Muslim immigrants to provide the cheap labor. The price they are paying and will pay is very high, including having immigrants who don't want to integrate and who want their own little muslim countries. The Muslim immigrants don't seem to be interested in improving the society in which they live and they are easy marks for terrorist recruitment and activity.
Europe, given its dependence on immigrant labor, should recruit immigrants from Christian countries (e.g., Africa, Mexico, South America, Asia). They will not only get cheap labor but they will get immigrants who strive to achieve, strive to integrate and get educated, and strive to make their host country a better place for their hosts and their own children.
It may even help the lost sheep of Europe to find their faith again. Which, in the scheme of things, would be helpful over time in fighting Islam.
at December 11, 2006 9:51 PM
Told ya so!! Oh that Bush, he's really *redeeming* himself. he caused the problem. he *loves* moslems. THEY SHOULD ALL STAY ON HIS RANCH IN CRAWFORD!!!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 9:53 PM
Millions of moslems flooding into the West.. courtesy of dhimmi bumble-Bush!
someone PLEASE start a Third Party!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 9:56 PM
"fuel the whole debate about the West favoring Christians"
- as if no Muslim anywhere has ever unfairly favored Muslims!!!
Posted by: wallyUK at December 11, 2006 9:56 PM
And which country is the number two choice for immigrants when the U.S. turns them down?
"Welcome to Canada."
Posted by: Josephine at December 11, 2006 10:02 PM
Officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program. Any decisions regarding admission will be based on a family's vulnerability, not religion, officials said.
WHO exactly *votes* in this country?? Americans?? Or Iraqis and other moslmes???
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:04 PM
To think the years we have been trying to change Iraq's politics and government for the better, having failed to do so, we're preparing to let in some of the same Iraqis who ideologically and morally have been and are opposed to us. And why is it that the Christians of Iraq, a minority population but who have been the most negatively effected by the war and have left the country in the largest porportions, wouldn't be favored in any refugee influx. It would be fair and it'd be better for us, too. Whether it's the US, France, or Romania, it's a reasonable demand to keep out those with Islamist dispositions. Go to Egypt, Jordan, or the dozens of other Islamic states- there are your ideological kindred. Not Us!
I hope that Americans will unapolegetically defend its historical and ethicial character and protect it. We are, percentage wise, a more Christian country than Israel is a Jewish one or India Hindu.
Posted by: sci_ at December 11, 2006 10:05 PM
A great many of the estimated 1.4 million Iraqi Muslims also are expected to try to resettle, many in the West, according to UN officials.
Sounds like We and Europe are under UN occupation!
Reading this has me hitting the ROOF!!!
at December 11, 2006 10:06 PM
This is an overwhelmingly Christian country...
I'm sorry Robert but I have to disagree. Back in the day, this would have been true. The main religion now is consumerism. As for the state of Christianity and consequences for all nonmuslims, I'll explain later in a more suitable thread.
As for the main topic, of course we have no moral obligation. They did not even help us do any actual fighting like the South Vietnamese or Hmong did. Then again, even that's a flimsy arguement at times.
Plus, unlike Vietnam where our enemy did not desire to come to the US, the enemies here do and for the purpose of destroying us from the inside. They will pose as helpless civilians to get in this program and once inside the US, carnage will ensue. It's a classic Trojan Horse situation. But now they don't even need the horse.
Posted by: Itachi at December 11, 2006 10:09 PM
CAIR is LOVING this! hey BUSH.. this goes out to you: Bring these millinons of MO-Foes in here and YOUR party will NEVER again get a majority for anything! But then you really don't care about America - or "your" party!!
is the Dhimmi voting still open??!!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:13 PM
Those who voted for Bush as Dhimmi of the year must be feeling smug.
@Atlantic.
I don't feel smug. I feel ***RAGE***
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:15 PM
A poster above claims that Europe 'depends on cheap labour' and therefore must allow Muhammedan infiltration.
That is false! The 'cheap labour' argument might apply to the US, but not for Europe. Mohammedans do not participate in fruit-picking or seasonal jobs like asparagus cutting, too hard...
Europe's wages are rather high and Mohammedans cannot and will not work cheaper than others, as a matter of fact they either don't work at all, or drive taxis. They have also systematically infiltrated Airports as bagage handlers and cause huge security problems.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 11, 2006 10:20 PM
And which country is the number two choice for immigrants when the U.S. turns them down?
"Welcome to Canada."
Posted by: Josephine
OY VEY, Canada...
at December 11, 2006 10:21 PM
If they do this I swear I'll convert to Judaism and MOVE TO FREAKIN' ISRAEL!! And I hope I am not over the age limit to join the IDF.
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:22 PM
THIS is ONE strong argument for dividing up Iraq. each "group" can live among their own.
I am DONE with moslems!!
BUSH you TRAITOR!!!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:24 PM
Bush's failure after 9/11 is growing more severe even now. There was a shining moment when he, or any leader, competent or incompetent, could do whatever he wished. That was the moment to change our immigration policies, at least vis a vis immigration from the Muslim world. Taken over the long term, allowing this level of Muslim immigration is probably worse for America than the entire adventure in Iraq, from the loss of prestige, treasure, lives and humiliation of our impending failure. Maybe I am wrong, maybe we are all wrong, and the Muslims in America will quietly abandon their faith over a couple of generations. Maybe they will begin the self-criticism and introspection their faith so desparately needs, if it can survive that. Let's hope, because no one is stopping Muslim immigration any time soon.
Posted by: Quijybo at December 11, 2006 10:27 PM
Bush - and 99% of our Western "leaders" don't care at all about us and they don't do anything for our benefit.
The year is about 1936. Things are getting REAL gloomy.. God help us all. I hope I will be accepted as a refugee should i apply to go to Israel.
I'd prefer to die with a weapon in my hand and if it's in defense of Israel it will have been worthwhile. Sadly enough I am beginning to feel a bit "out of touch" in the "near middle east" we are being turned into!!
at December 11, 2006 10:32 PM
The Shiites, if they wish to leave, have the largest Shia state next door to go to if they wish to emigrate. And being the Iran supports the same destabilizing forces that contribute to the fighting, they are doubly suitable and morally liable for any Shias.
The Sunnis have almost every other Muslim state in the Middle-East to resettle in with their fellow Sunnis. And who knows, France might be amenable to taking in more muslims, they'll be a Muslim majority state by mid-century anyway!
Why should the people who supported one of the worst dictators in the world, among whom a majority could not be found to fight for a half-decent state after we toppled said dictator, why should they be expected to NOT make us a worse country, a less unified one, by their outlooks and demands on our society or culture? Whether it's the sharia, or the hijab, looking upon Non-Muslims as lessers aka "dhimmis", ideologically supporting Hizballah, Hamas, Al-Qaida, etc., we don't want it here.
We are not ethically and morally obligiated to helping destroy our country, whatever the situation in Iraq!
Posted by: sci_ at December 11, 2006 10:35 PM
I can only pray for massive government red tape that drags the refugee process out longer than ever and that whoever seeks to come to the U.S. gets tired of waiting and goes somewhere else.
Posted by: 3812Michelle
Pipe dream. Swan song. Goog bye America.
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Well, Bush screws us again. If the leaders of our country continue to expect my blind patriotism, they damn well better give preference to all non-Muslim refugees.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 11, 2006 10:39 PM
Note to Tom Tancredo:
NOW you can make some HAY!!! SPEAK UP!
I apologize for the caps to the good people on here. But ths is how it always starts with some article in the Globe..
Think of the Somalis that are already here.
Multiply that by say, a thousand, and you get the idea..
If this goes through we are DONE, folks.
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:41 PM
Isn't it ironic, that these people will come here seeking refuge and then will work tooth and toenail to turn our beloved country into the sewer they left behind.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. And that goes for us too, because we have not been abandoned by God; we've abandoned Him. He's helped us in the past to overcome our Mohammadan problem. Perhaps it's time to ask for His help again.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 11, 2006 10:49 PM
It's a classic Trojan Horse situation. But now they don't even need the horse.
Posted by: Itachi
Hey, They've got George Dhimya Bush!!!! This guy will one day be known as the fool on the Hill who presided over the UN takeover of he United States of America.
I got OUT of Germany because I didn't understand why German citizens were working and paying taxes to support their enmies coming into the country.. and I saw the same situation in France, Spain and Italy when I searched for alternatives. So I got out and enteredt the USA ***Legally***. But now I see that enemies are also entering ***Legally***.
Where do I go next, Israel? Olmert sure doesn't make that a welcome proposition either ;-(
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 11:14 PM
Let's face it after WW2 there was no sudden influx of Japanese and Germans,,,other than perhaps war brides! And as stated they were not security threats.
Posted by: Gramfan
Would've been better that what we are about to get now!
at December 11, 2006 11:15 PM
Sounds like We and Europe are under UN occupation!
Reading this has me hitting the ROOF!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 10:06 PM
We are under UN occupation and have been for decades! You would probably have a fatal stroke if you knew just how much influence the UN and its commie bastard bureaucrats and Arab League sheiks have in American domestic issues, including immigration and education.
The UN is a farce, a failure, a behemoth den of corruption, graft, and anti-American sentiment. Despite its inability to do anything it was created to do, we spend billions to not only keep it afloat, but to allow it to steadily expand. The UN bureaucracy is so gigantic and far-reaching that is would take days to figure out how many departments it has and what their purpose it.
The venal, corrupt "leaders" in the Middle East want to export as much of their excess baggage as possible. The perfect place to dump it is on the U.S. Then we can suffer the consequences that will arise when these tribal neanderthals experience the inevitable culture shock that will ensue. We deserve it; it's our fault these poor people had to flee their beloved lands.
If Bush has any say in the matter, he'll let them all come to the U.S.. The State Department brought in tens of thousands of Somali "refugees" who contribute immensely to "diversity", mainly by demanding special privileges to accomodate their vile religion.
Let's not forget the thousands of Saudi students here to attend college, those demi-gods from the land of the prophet who are too good to work and who truly believe that they are our superiors. Why can't they build their own universities; God knows they have the money. If they are so much better than the rest of humanity, why can't they educate themselves? The damage done to this country by the sleazy Saudi wahabbis is incalculable. Every administration since Johnson has allowed them to spread their vile religion, finance and staff the ME Studies departments in many major universities, send millions of their incompatible citizens to our country, bribe government officials and buy influence. I am sure they have bribed many a member of Congress to prevent off shore oil drilling so that money to fund wahabbism will keep rolling in. It all just makes me sick.
Posted by: Susanp at December 11, 2006 11:23 PM
100,000 Republican minded Christians, who can speak and understand the enemy sound good to me.
Just think of the stories they can tell about their "peaceful Countryman".
We wouldn't have to finish rebuilding Iraq for them either
Posted by: flowerknife_us
Christians and Zoroastrians and Chaldeans should of course be welcome into our protective care. But how can we guarantee their safety if even more moslems come in?? Where are the "so-called" powerful Jewish groups opposing this?! Are you guys NUTS??!! I see the protective barriers around the Temples of Manhattan! Do you really want more persecution and fear? STOP worshipping the Golden Calf of LiEberalism!!! STAND UP and take a risk like your brethren do each and every day in Israel!!
Jesses!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 11:23 PM
So.. how do we effectively oppose and undermine this effort to import our sworn enemies into this country? I also think we shouldn't wish them on France or anyone else either.
LET alla-balla sort 'em out. Why can't they stay in Jordan?? Jordan is a nice islamic country.
It may be time to rethink our relationship with the UN.
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 11:25 PM
We should allow all Christians in that need to escape that Islamic lunatic asylum. I'm sure we can rely on them to be loyal Americans. Muslims should definitely be bared from migrating to our country. Why import their dysfunctional attitudes into our culture?
Look for a huge increase of Lebonese Christians trying to enter our country in the next few years. Once Hesbollah takes control of Lebonon, they'll make life so miserable for Christians they'll have to leave.
at December 11, 2006 11:39 PM
To the State Department-
Do you or other federal agencies consider accepting foreigners as refugees on the basis of their facing persecution, be it politically, ethnically, or religiously motiviated? And do you understand that by denying Iraqi Christian applicants favorable status, when the fact is they are more persecuted and leaving the country in higher porportions than Muslim Iraqis, you aren't being more "fair", you are discriminating against them by the fact they are Christian.
Could you have the courage and honesty to admit, in spite of all the politically correct posturing and fear of retaliation, that religious minorities and among them Christians are discrimated against in Muslim countries and not treat them otherwise when considering potential refugees?
- Does anyone know if there's an email address for the state department? I suppose all being unelected appointess, they'd have little contact with the public but... :sigh:
at December 11, 2006 11:46 PM
Europe's wages are rather high and Mohammedans cannot and will not work cheaper than others, as a matter of fact they either don't work at all, or drive taxis. They have also systematically infiltrated Airports as bagage handlers and cause huge security problems.
Posted by: sheik yer'mam
Words of knowledge. These bastards don't work at all. They come to the European host country of their choice and then they get on the dole. Marxism is alive and well!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 11:47 PM
If we continue with these gestural razor slashes at our own wrist..before long we will strike an artery.
Posted by: Madduck at December 11, 2006 11:48 PM
Bring 'em. There's plenty of Federal land in Nevada and Western Utah they can homestead. If they're busy trying to feed themselves, they won't have time for jihad.
I'd even accept Shiites, but no Sunnis.
at December 11, 2006 11:51 PM
Then we can suffer the consequences that will arise when these tribal neanderthals experience the inevitable culture shock that will ensue. We deserve it; it's our fault these poor people had to flee their beloved lands.
Please don't insult the Neanderthal community by comparing them with moslems!
SusanP made an *excellent* point by the way. We should indeed investigate whether the opponenst of off-shore and ANWAR drilling are funded in any way by SOWdevil petrodollars. The last thing the SOWdecils want is for us to lose the addiction! Meanhile China is drilling right outside our shores!!!!!
RISE UP, AMERICA!!!! THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 11, 2006 11:54 PM
This is my point about the stupid wall we are going to build along the Mexican border...
What is point!
We first need to fix the State Dept. becuase why would a muslim go to Mexico and walk miles to get into America when all he has to do is get a visa and he is in???
Once again lets go over this...
Radical Mexicans wants to prune my garden and get government benies...
Radical Muslims want to prune my head and stick it on a pole...
Who is a bigger threat to YOU?
Priorities!
at December 12, 2006 12:25 AM
Tell em to swim, tunnel, or sneak in like any other hard working errr.."immigrant" that wants to take entry level employment from my teenage kid. Asylum is for pussies.
Seriously, it is unbelievable how we import poverty. "Sponsors" all over the country are bringing in people that haven't a clue how to provide themselves the survival basics. Some look at stoves and inside plumbing like alien flying saucers. At about $500 (soon to be $850)We put a pretty cheap price on legal residency and citizenship.
Finally, the skilled worker exception is the biggest gag job for our own kids. I have had the joy to get to know several Asian computer and technology firms. For many of these foreign contolled US sales corporations, their workers are primarily in on student visas, and then graduate to skilled worker exception status. As those workers are expected to go back to their country of origin, the employer doesn’t have to pay social security tax. These are good entry level jobs in the tech sector where our own high school and college grads would gain valuable skills. However, it is around 15% cheaper for them to hire the foreign workers. Meanwhile our kids loose out.
Please tell the Iraqi's to settle in Michigan or Minnesota, we got enough problems in California without them coming here.
Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at December 12, 2006 12:44 AM
That does it!!! Enough of this liberal crap where everyone is beautiful and is much better than Americans.
We do NOT need 1,000,000,000 million Iraqis here. If this is what happens everytime we try to help some country out then I say lets not help anyone out.
What we need in immigrants are smart, intelligent people with a sincere, kind, honest heart who want to ADD to the greatness of this country. NOT persons who will desert us when the going gets tough or want to bring our culture back down to the level of the one they just came from.
What I think started about 30 years ago and is now entrenched within our government is third world people that now know how to trick the system and sneak their friends and relatives, semi-legally into this country. I see this all the time.
We need to demand an audit by our congressional representatives on the INS or whatever new double-speak term they give themselves.
My friends the time for action is now. No violence please. We just need to get this country back to the basics.
Posted by: Mekoots at December 12, 2006 1:01 AM
Have to agree with you germaninamerica, as long as they all settle on GW's ranch. The U.S. has asorbed more than its share of the world's population. And our legal immigration lets in everyone from the third world first, Europeans dead last if at all.
Ask Ilana Mercer 'bout that.
at December 12, 2006 1:28 AM
Let them go to Lebanon, where they can team up with other Christians there. Let them learn to fight for liberty, law and order. Let them learn to fight, before we accept any of them, be they Christian, be they anything.
Or let them go to Israel, where they can replace the indigenous Christian population that is fleeing.
I don't care where they go, but not the West.
Christians who don't fight, Christians who accept dhimmi status for centuries, who are too frightened to flee, or are too cozy with their muslim neighbors for various financial reasons, should be the LAST people we consider for citizenship.
If they won't fight, if they cave, if they've done an historical dash to dhimmi status, they don't deserve to have Old Glory as their flag.
If you won't fight, we don't want you.
Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 1:37 AM
The Mexicans will fight, and our record books are replete with Mexican Americans who've demonstrated courage under fire, "courage above and beyond the call of duty."
But as for dhimmis, they can get screwed. They're part of the reason we've so few allies in this fricken war. Because they're so damned eager to embrace dhimmi servitude.
The Mexicans aren't dhimmis, {though they've demonstrated a painful to witness flair for political incompetence down there...}.
I don't mind the Mexicans, though the numbers are a concern. And there are a great many Mexican women who are beautiful.
The Iraqis have nothing to commend them. No history for courage in battle, no beautiful women of any note.
So forget them.
Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 1:41 AM
And another thing, let's end this nauseating comparison of Christian Mexicans with mideast lunatics.
Muslims are not Mexicans.
And it's insulting to compare Mexicans to muslims.
Hell, Europeans right now would deem themselves lucky if their immigrants were Christian Mexicans, instead of muslims.
You guys don't know how lucky you've got it.
The Mexicans will fight.
That we know. The muslims will sooner or later tend towards subjugating, that too, we know.
The Mexicans can become our allies, if we had any political and strategic imagination.
Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 1:45 AM
Think Christian & other sects Iraqis should be allowed into U.S.BUT NO MOSLEMS!If our stupid leaders had done so in the beginning-only allowed non Moslems into Western countries-we wouldn't be facing WW111.Also these persecuted minorities KNOW THE ENEMY,they will be invaluable as translators & detecting Jihad in the mosques.Their numbers will help to bolster us in the struggle ahead just as Eastern Europeans,Christian or Atheist Slavs, flocking to Britain will do the same for that beleaguered
country.AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET FOR OUR SURVIVAL...
at December 12, 2006 1:59 AM
"Isn't it ironic, that these people will come here seeking refuge and then will work tooth and toenail to turn our beloved country into the sewer they left behind.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. And that goes for us too, because we have not been abandoned by God; we've abandoned Him. He's helped us in the past to overcome our Mohammadan problem. Perhaps it's time to ask for His help again.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader "
This is of course the biggest argument that they have a hidden agenda, fifth column, Trojan horse as mentioned above. You are so right Isabella.
I don't know why people can't see this.
I migrated to OZ aged 9 months. My parents just wanted to fit in as much as possible. They did just that and quite quickly as did many Europeans and later Asians.
Germaninamerica:
Noble to fight and die for Israel.I am sure they would appreciate you.
I for one would be concerned for you wherever you are as indeed I am concerned for all Israel's.
OT but our PM is bringing in a test for future migrants: language and general knowledge based, and also a willingness to accept Aussie values.
It's a good start. One problem: apparently you get to do some of it online and we all know what abuse that could bring. Local polls show 86% in favour!
Posted by: Gramfan at December 12, 2006 2:03 AM
Itachi:
"Plus, unlike Vietnam where our enemy did not desire to come to the US, the enemies here do and for the purpose of destroying us from the inside".
Precisely. The majority of muslims who agitated for Partition and pukistan actually stayed back in India to wreak havoc and hollow it out from 'within'.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 2:52 AM
Meanwhile, "officials at the State Department and the United Nations said they understand the danger facing Iraqi Christians but said they don't want to give the impression that they would favor Christians over Muslims in a resettlement program."
Oh yeh, we couldn't possibly protect a Christian country like America from people who have a religion which wants to destroy non Muslim countries could we... we couldn't possibly discriminate... and we couldnt possibly take in christians who are being slaughtered in their thousands by the Muslims, could we..
If Americans allow their government to do this then we would just have to say that they are totally stupid and deserve what they get...If Americans dont rise up and get angry at the government for not protecting them and more than likely putting them in horrendious danger, then they deserve what they get... for goodness sake, read the last three quarters of the Quran and others of their holy books.. and see what danger we are in today from this religion of peace, when the time is right and they are called, there can be NO moderate muslims...
So if we know that the muslims holy books tell them to slaughter all who will not submit when the time is right, and we say we cant discriminate from those who wont kill us and those who will, then one would have to question the intellect of Americian leaders...
at December 12, 2006 3:07 AM
The Mexicans will fight.
Obviously, this guy never went to the annual May day parade and anti police brutality march in downtown LA. There are plenty of black shirted anarchists marching around like Che Guevera. The LA Move On antiwar marchers were mainly Hispanic.
Hispanics are not a monolith some are assets to the US, and some are a big drain, but clearly we are lucky that Iraq is not part of Mexico.
Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at December 12, 2006 3:14 AM
I will use two to three parts for this excellent article,,
If real Islam is truly exposed, it will be eradicated not only in Europe, America, Asia and Africa, but also in Arab countries as well. People will re-examine the reality of this religion and the prophethood of this Arabic man called Muhammad. These writings below are a portion of writings from Muslim scholars...
Contemporary Muslim Scholars Concur on the Principle of Offensive War
In addition to the foregoing quotations, I would like to add some statements which may have more bearing for international readers. I will include many other declarations quoted from publications of the Liberation Party in Jerusalem as made by another Muslim scholar.
"The Jurisprudence of the Biography" by al-Buti (7th ed.) published by the Azhar in Egypt
This book was revised by Al Azhar, so it is accepted by all Muslims and is well-known all over the Islamic world. It deals with Muhammad’s biography, interprets it and comments on the most famous events of his life. The author states (page 324) that the offensive war is legal. He literally uses these words,
"The concept of Holy War in Islam does not take into consideration whether (the war is) a defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of God and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case it is the apex, the most noble Holy War. It is legal to carry on a Holy War."
The implications are plain enough—there is no need for comment. Then he adds on p. 242,
"Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission which the prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase; that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God than that they embrace Islam. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the people of the Book except conversion to Islam or being subjugated to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight anyone who attempts to stand in its way. Now, after the domination of Islamic rule is in place, and its mission complete, it is meaningless (in regard to Holy War) to (talk about) defensive wars, as some of the researchers do. Otherwise, what does Muhammad’s statement mean (as it is related by the Bukhari), ‘They would not invade you, but you invade them ’?"
Posted by: Gaye at December 12, 2006 3:16 AM
It is obvious that defensive warfare was a temporary phase in Muhammad’s strategy. After that, a second phase followed which was offensive war, a legal tool for holy war. In this phase, people were not left to enjoy their status quo, but were invaded and they suffered the horrors of the war, though they did not attempt to start a war or to invade the Muslims. It is as Muhammad said: "They will not invade you, but you are those who will invade them." Why? Is it an order to impose Islam on infidels or to kill them? Or (as is the case with the people of the Book) are they either to accept Islam, fight a war, or surrender and pay the poll-tax with humiliation?
This is an explicit declaration and Dr. Buti does not hide the truth. To the contrary, he boasts of it and asserts that it is wrong to regard Islamic wars as defensive wars. He insists that this is a false concept which some researchers have reiterated along with Western nations in order to halt the Islamic march.
Let the entire world listen to the opinion of one of the most famous Muslim scholars from the Azhar University as he demands the resumption of war to conquer the world. He says (pages 265 and 266),
"The concept by which the mission directed itself from the beginning of Muhammad’s migration to Medina to the Hudaybiyya treaty, was simply a defensive phase of the plan. During this stage, the prophet did not initiate an attack or start an invasion, but after the treaty of Hudaybiyya, the prophet intended to enter a new, essential phase in accordance with Islamic law. This was the phase of fighting those who heard the message but arrogantly rejected it. This phase, by the act of Muhammad and his word, has become a legal decree, according to Muslims in every age until the day of resurrection!"
I wonder, "Why should Muhammad fight them? Is it because they rejected his faith that he should fight with them?" The Azhari scholar answers, "Yes, because they arrogantly refused to believe in him, so he added that this new stage of war; that is, the phase of fighting unbelievers. This came after the completion of the defensive period which followed the treaty of Hudaybiyya. It has become (according to Muslims) legal in every age until the day of resurrection."
Posted by: Gaye at December 12, 2006 3:18 AM
Dr. Buti continues:
"...This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack" (page 266).
Many have thought as much, but it is obvious from this statement that defensive warfare is an attempt made by Western thinkers to hide from the eyes of Muslims the reality of offensive warfare. If we wonder why Western thinkers do that, Dr. Buti answers this question on the same page 266 saying,
"It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?"
Have European, American and Eastern people—as well as the governments of the World—read these obvious words? We have been led to believe that Muhammad and his followers only waged defensive wars. Yet here they declare that defensive warfare was a temporary strategy at the beginning of Islam. Six years after Muhammad’s departure from Mecca.
Dr. Buti, You have demonstrated to them that holy war in Islam is a continuing ideal which will last to the day of resurrection. It is a plan in which it is incumbent on all Muslims to fight (in the cause of God) those who reject Islam. This concept started in the sixth year of the Hegira and continues to the present.
at December 12, 2006 3:18 AM
Brilliant! Just how are they going to screen several hundred thousand Iraqis for jihadis if they can't even screen the Iraqi police and armed forces properly? I would think due to the infiltration of the government of Iraq by jihadis, the general corruption and chaos, and the cluelessness of the state department, bringing in several hundred thousand Iraqis in is propably one of the best ways to facilitate another terror attack on US soil. You can't make this stuff up.... this must be Baker's idea.
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 12, 2006 3:23 AM
well considering that the Christian are being killed
every day every for the crime of being christion and make much better citizens than a Muslims would but the bureaucrats at state are all closet empire builders and they know that the more Muslims they bring in a happier Saudi Arabia is, and the better their chances of any jobs after they leave government service and they all know the Saudi princes pay the most as long as you been a good little toady and sure that you have represented the Saudi Arabians interests welcome to the State Departmentp resenting Americans enemies sinse 1948
at December 12, 2006 3:26 AM
Hugh you wrote,
We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.
And you are dead right, America, Australia, Britian owe nothing to these people, they owe us. and they still want to kill us...and we know why, all for Allah/Mohammad and his requirements...
They have not only had help, money poured into it from our countries, but we buy oil from them and they are still a third world country, they still cant prosper, you cant keep pouring money after bad..we teach our children to be successful, Dr's, teachers, nurses, policemen, electricians etc, and they teach their children to kill us..
at December 12, 2006 3:37 AM
Americaningermany,
America should get wiser.
India thunders with eyes wide shut "Kashmir is an integral part of India yadayada...". Fact is, no Hindu can buy or own land there. The existing
Hindus were massacred, their orchards and lands confiscated and occupied.Those who fled are living as refugees in dismal conditions.
No Azim Premji(shia moslem)of WIPRO or "naive nobel idiot" yunus or bleeding hearted leftist amartya sen is ever going to feel responsible/guilt ridden for their plight.
Read the following to know more about what you already know:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2
"Fraud on India" by Praful Goradia
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 3:37 AM
Americaningermany,
Agree with you. Even if the mexicans are ohsonice, good fences alone make good neighbours.
Excellence in any form invariably invites jealousy and covetousness. To hell with labelling as racists and bigots. I am so full of contempt for my fellow hindu dhimmis. So what? This way at least I am spared their company!
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 4:13 AM
There are also good Mexican folks who are loyal to the United States, BUT that said, I fear that far too many of those living in the U.S. are NOT loyal to the United States and care nothing about fighting to protect her.
They would just as soon side up with jihadists against the hated Americans.
American I am afraid this might be true. I've heard it said by Michael Savage about a lot of the new immigrants, "they are not the immigrants of your grandfather's day" to paraphrase.
Last week on FOX they showed a segment where the minuteman were being harrased and these newcomers were holding signs saying Europeans are illegal. This is what we are to them, we're not even American. They hate Columbus.
Oh, but I am sorry, you must be talking about legal immigrants. It gets so overwhelming with the influx.
try this site, she watches this border stuff:
http://jillosophy.blogspot.com
at December 12, 2006 4:21 AM
American, Pigtails and All,
The word "racist" makes me share this.
A lot of my relatives have long settled well in America. Thanks to Internet , non pc blogs etc, I no longer have to buy their prejudiced versions of 'truth'. This is about just one of my distant relatives who are among the billionaires in USA. The day her (Indian) husband did not get his desired career promotion, the hitherto softspoken, svelte wife attributed it to the "racist white man" in agitated tones. She also went to the extent of defending OJSimpson (his trial was going on then) caring not a bit about collating the facts.
I am sure she would have sobered up a bit, as years later, her extremely dark skinned daughter fell in love with and married a WHITE AMERICAN and not an African American.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 4:43 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
Is this like a Marshall plan?....if so it is likely to work....no lack of volunteers anyway.
AIG, GIA, Stillfedup ....Please imagine it...
SADR CITY in the Amerike....what a wonderful prize the Amerike have got in invading Iraq, Allah SWT may try to look after his own...but the Amerike certainly do.
I've got to give it to you peoples...the Amerike
It's your mess...and you will clean at least part of it.
Please remember to make space for the following:
1) highest order mosques to be build.
2) A parade route for the Assura festival, where shias cut themselves in reverence to Imam Ali...this specticle is not to be missed.
There will be a town structure ofcourse...but remember two business that remain on the outskirts.
a) Dressmaking
b) Halal Butchers.
Please make EVERY effort for integration.....
but above all be happy to have Iraqis as your neighbour....it's gonna be a blast.
Posted by: Naseem at December 12, 2006 6:33 AM
For my two cents worth:
I would object to any Muslim immigration. Have you seen any of the wannabee immigrants fighting in Iraq for their own country? Every time I see the news reels showing bombed out cars and body parts lying about I see the people just standing about doing nothing. They do not protest the violence, They do not hold banner carrying , fist shaking rallies decrying Islamic terror. They are not helping coalition forces locate the terrorists. I think people not willing to fight for their own country are worthless.
A recent survey of Muslims in the USA show an overwhelming percentage consider themselves Muslims first, Americans last. Any influx of new Muslim immigrants will be no different.
I agree with other posters that the Muslims should just go to one of their own countries and just live in the countries that thrive on the thrill kill religion of Islam. The Muslims in western countries are proving themselves to be unwilling participants in freedom and are proving themselves to be more of a threat than an asset.
Of two evils, which would you rather have in your neighborhood , "the Latin Kings gang" or the "Al-Sadr gang". Which language is easier to learn, Spanish or Arabic? Which food is just better Spanish or Arabic? Which women are more enjoyable Spanish flamingo dancers or burka babes? Which religion is more honest and true Catholism or Islam? Who makes better citizens, Mexicans or Muslims?
A little off topic, but as I watch scenes from the Muslim countries, I do not see trees, birds, farms, flowers; I do not see people enjoying outdoor cafes, walking dogs, playful children; I do not see families enjoying church services, it appears Muslim church services are for males only. I do not see clean neighborhoods, public transportation, malls, or tourist meccas. I do not see any effort in community activities as neighborhood clean ups, habitat for humanity home construction, law and order, visiting nurse associations, sporting events , social clubs, music concerts, cable tv, people enjoying life.
In short, if people live this way, why on earth would you want them in your neighborhood. As Can be said "Well, there goes the neighborhood!"
Ban Muslim Immigration!!
Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 12, 2006 6:52 AM
The informative one writes:
but above all be happy to have Iraqis as your neighbour....it's gonna be a blast.
This is probably the truth, Of course the blast you receive will probably take you and several of your associates out.
at December 12, 2006 6:59 AM
Hey George Dhimya Bush.. Thought we were fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here.
Once you get them in here the whole USA will turn into m0slemsota.
And re. that Yunus creep. Your name sounds like anus.
Posted by: germaninamerica at December 12, 2006 8:42 AM
Don't let Naseem confuse us here, folks.
The yearning to be free runs deep in every man, except that it has been stifled in the Islamic mentality by the cruelty of their demonic god. Naseem is like the village idiot, rambling and spouting with no knowledge of where it's place is in the cosmos.
While many Americans have tossed aside their Christian birthright, the values that we were brought up with are still inside of us, values like charity, compassion, consideration for one's neighbor's well being. There are examples of these values manifesting themselves everyday in America. Do we really believe that we will replace them with hatred, murder, retribution and revenge? Not so fast.
The video below shows the beloved Assura Festival that Naseem values more than life itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PPOjnO4nvQ
Are we Americans really going to allow this sort of thing to run rampant on our streets? No, and once the fighting starts, the mosques will be the first things to go.
If you haven't seen "Apocalypto" yet, I urge you to. Mel Gibson managed to portray the Islamic superiority complex in a movie about Mayans living half a millenium ago. Same story, less clothes. Same burning urge to be free.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 12, 2006 9:42 AM
"as I watch scenes from the Muslim countries, I do not see trees, birds, farms, flowers; I do not see people enjoying outdoor cafes, walking dogs, playful children"
Posted by exsgtbrown.
I will tell you what I have seen firsthand for months.
The unruly and incorrigibly desensitized children would be randomly hitting flowers, plants at times even setting some on fire (no exaggeration) with the indolent and equally desensitized mothers munching on dates filled almonds, hotdogs etc. Almonds imported from America. Somebody told me they gorge on almonds as they find them potent aphrodisiacs.
My child (8 yrs)who was cycling in the park was pounced upon, punched and his cycle and wristwatch stolen. My fellow hindu dhimmis warned me if I were to complain, my child's eyes would be gouged out.
Pigeons and sparrows would be 'taken care of' by their slingshots.Cats brutally chased, yesss, have seen barbarians overtaking them and hitting them with their shoes and stones.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 10:13 AM
Posted above:
"Please tell the Iraqi's to settle in Michigan or Minnesota, we got enough problems in California without them coming here."
Aw, come on, Minnesota always takes the refugees. The Hmong are an asset, but the Somalis...well...just check Minneapolis crime stats.
Posted by: freedomschool at December 12, 2006 10:15 AM
Assalamau Laikum AIG,
Why are you ALWAYS complaining?
Chill woman....you'll give yourself a stroke and then be a burden on the Germans.
Posted by: Naseem at December 12, 2006 11:35 AM
This wuslime naseem's audacity is galling.
Sometime back was out with smarmy sweet nothings about "Amerike and British Soldiers doing a good job". Now admonishing Americaningermany.
There ,you have a foretaste of their character.
To hell with your mandatory greetings naseem.Don't bother to preface your vacuous opinions with them.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 11:44 AM
I can assure you of one thing Naseem: AIG knows the immigration issue MUCH more than she lets on. IMO, AIG is being too kind. Considering the many issues such as crime, welfare usage, etc. etc.
It's always somewhat amusing that those who see no problem with illegal aliens never have to deal with the effects of said aliens.
at December 12, 2006 12:24 PM
Only allow the Assyrians.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 12, 2006 1:00 PM
Re Mexican and Hispanic immigration. For anyone who thinks that massive numbers of Latino immigrants will help us in the fight against the Muslims, I have one name for you - Hugo Chavez.
at December 12, 2006 2:03 PM
Settle all Iraquis admitted in Texas as close as possible to the Bush Ranch so El Presidente can see them as often as possible. allahu akbar.
Posted by: MP at December 12, 2006 2:06 PM
How have the Hmong, in the aggregate, improved the quality of life in Minnesota? Just wondering...
Posted by: MP at December 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Americans concerned about the immigration policies in the US should check out www.numbersUSA.com and GET INVOLVED!
Posted by: fedupinamerica at December 12, 2006 2:21 PM
The problem with the immigration from the south is that of numbers, COMBINED with a loss of faith in the idea of the melting pot. But I've no problem with Mexican immigration, so long as the numbers are manageable, so long as it's legal, and so long as those arriving have DEMONSTRATED THEIR DESIRE TO BECOME AMERICANS, and not just come to America to earn money.
As for those worrying about whether Mexicans will fight, go check out the history of our war against them way back in the 1840s. amd go check out the numbers of hispanics in our Marine Corps. Latin machismo has provided a great deal of incentive for hispanics to enlist.
Were we to get into a situation where we had to bring back the draft, and form Armies of some several millions, those Mexican Americans will fight. That's a fact.
AS FOR THE ANARCHISTS in our midst, that isn't a problem of ethnicity, but rather one of education, and the leftist, multi-cultural attack on fundamental American values.
There the problem is the age old problem of the left. We can also point to Caucasian kids, well-educated, at least ostensibly well-educated, wealthy, who utter the same leftist/anarchist nonsense.
The problem is numbers, and correspondingly, the problem then becomes a legal system that allows those here to bring in their entire families abroad. So if we've got ten million illegals, who we legalize, then if they just bring in two family members each, we get a situation where all of a sudden, and it will be something of a sudden, we've got THIRTY MILLION hispanics wandering around.
That's what I meant by a problem of numbers. It's just too many, too soon.
I would like to see the United States say to the Mexican government, we won't allow anyone else in the country, unless you hold a referendum where you ask the Mexican people whether they would like to be governed by the US Government for a single generation, 40 years. We'll solve your problems, we'll establish law, order, a middle class, you won't vote, you can enlist in our Armed Forces. But we'll govern you.
I think the Mexican people would take that deal. Polls have indicated that ALREADY A MAJORITY OF MEXICANS WANT TO BE GOVERNED by the United States.
Force the corrupt Mexican government, the incarnation of one of the most poisonous establishments in the West, FORCE them to see that their own people repudiate them, repudiate their works, and their lies.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 2:49 PM
THE ISLAMICANS ARE COMING !!!!!!!
Mssr Bush and friends seem to be willing to open our doors to any misfit that asks (demands). It's a real comfort to know that our elected officials are looking out for our interests and well-being.....
Posted by: Sixgun at December 13, 2006 1:38 PM
Crows n Cows - huzzah - I think Naseem is well described as vacuous - obviously swimming in deeper waters than he is capable.
His vapid rantings of racism and unsubtle hints of false superiority are the last refuge of short bus argumentation. If you can't formulate a cohesive thought or construct a reasoned argument you only have to cry "racism". These drooling simpletons could not recognize a logical fallacy let alone guard against one.
It is such a shame to realize what the Middle East has become. To go from a beacon of civilization in the world; a model of tolerance and learning. The center of education and rational philosophy to one of self-deluding sophistry and nihilistic death worshippers bent on destruction.
Most of the Middle East is ruled by self-aggrandizing, despotic warlords, propped up by wild-eyed zealots constantly enraptured in a state of outrage and misplaced fury and bile. Their claims of holiness are as laughable as circus mediums assertions of intimacy with ghosts.
As a child my family lived in Saudi Arabia for three years. I could not wait to come back to the US. Even at that young age I realized what a filthy sh*thole it was and is; as are most of the Muslim country's. And unfortunately for the rest of the modern world they wish to bring their primitive culture with them to the "new" world.
Funny how western liberals support views anathema to the very things they claim to cherish. Soft headed and cowardly sympathizers, they do not realize that their own actions undermine the very society we have fought to build since Democritus and the ancient Greeks. If they want to live in such a close-minded, misogynistic society they should simply move there. But that is too obvious for now.
Posted by: Fecklar at December 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Crows n Cows - huzzah - I think Naseem is well described as vacuous - obviously swimming in deeper waters than he is capable.
His vapid rantings of racism and unsubtle hints of false superiority are the last refuge of short bus argumentation. If you can't formulate a cohesive thought or construct a reasoned argument you only have to cry "racism". These drooling simpletons could not recognize a logical fallacy let alone guard against one.
It is such a shame to realize what the Middle East has become. To go from a beacon of civilization in the world; a model of tolerance and learning. The center of education and rational philosophy to one of self-deluding sophistry and nihilistic death worshippers bent on destruction.
Most of the Middle East is ruled by self-aggrandizing, despotic warlords, propped up by wild-eyed zealots constantly enraptured in a state of outrage and misplaced fury and bile. Their claims of holiness are as laughable as circus mediums assertions of intimacy with ghosts.
As a child my family lived in Saudi Arabia for three years. I could not wait to come back to the US. Even at that young age I realized what a filthy sh*thole it was and is; as are most of the Muslim country's. And unfortunately for the rest of the modern world they wish to bring their primitive culture with them to the "new" world.
Funny how western liberals support views anathema to the very things they claim to cherish. Soft headed and cowardly sympathizers, they do not realize that their own actions undermine the very society we have fought to build since Democritus and the ancient Greeks. If they want to live in such a close-minded, misogynistic society they should simply move there. But that is too obvious for now.
Posted by: Fecklar at December 14, 2006 6:59 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.)