yay Newt!
Newt also made a motion to get limitation legislation in the Free Speech bill before someone tries to challenge it.
how can we support this?

Posted by: sectionOne at December 17, 2006 9:06 AM

I raise the matter again: is there a law that makes behavior calculated to agitate on planes and in or around other means of public transportation (subways, busses, trains) punishable as a crime? That is, has the intentional infliction of emotional distress, normally a civil wrong, been criminalized, at the Federal level, so that there is a way to punish such behavior? There is evidence -- see Laura Mansfield's article -- that fiendish delight is taken by some Muslims in scaring those Infidels. That fiendish delight should be publicized, and the acts which provoke the fiendish delight should be both clearly punishable, at the state and Federal level, and punished.

Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 9:28 AM

"There is evidence -- see Laura Mansfield's article"
posted by Hugh

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43868

"At that point, another student took the podium. His name was Khaled, and he began to recount his recent trip to New York City. Khaled and three of his companions had gone to New York for several days in January. He told of how uncomfortable his trip up to NYC had been. He felt like he was being watched, and thought he was the victim of racial profiling.

Khaled and his friends were pretty unhappy about it, and while in New York, they came up with a plan to "teach a lesson" to the passengers and crew. You can imagine the story Khaled told. He described how he and his friends whispered to each other on the flight, made simultaneous visits to the restroom, and generally tried to "spook" the other passengers. He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying.

The others in the room thought the story was quite amusing, judging from the laughter. The imam stood up and told the group that this was a kind of peaceful civil disobedience that should be encouraged, and commended Khaled and his friends for their efforts.

He pointed out that it was through this kind of civil disobedience that ethnic profiling would fail."

Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2006 9:36 AM

Newt Gingrich is one of the few politicians that gets it. He was able to push forward the hated by the left "welfare reform". He was demonized by the leftist media.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 17, 2006 9:48 AM

Re: Gingrich: Imams should have been arrested

Absolutely. This was an act of terror, it was meant to frighten, it was deception and malice in ecclestiacal costume from beginning to end.

Beyond this, CAIR and Co. should be investigated by the FBI and Congress for encouraging Muslims to file suit because of the security at airports. The security that we all must endure, the hassle of hoops we must go through, the loosening of our belts, the removal of our shoes, and so much more-all this that Muslims and Kafirs must endure, is the result of this belief-system and its adherents.

It is only yesterday that we got on and off planes with only a little more hassle than in getting in and out of our cars when driving anyplace. Islam is the reason for the 1984-Orwellian-totalitarian conditions at our airports, though these mental cases at CAIR will think the reason is Israel, or Jews or whatever that rationalizes their projection of Islamic responsibility unto Unbelievers.

All we get from these mental cases at CAIR and the flying phonies are deception, stunts, and a total denial of responsibility in the matter. The whole ecclesiastical-costume-Islamic-puppet-show should be performed in a mental hospital. Then maybe our airports can be free again.

Posted by: Frank at December 17, 2006 9:55 AM

Newt Gingrich is one of the few politicians that gets it.

On TV minutes ago, Newt just conceded to the Tim Russert that the bulk of American Moslems are moderate, and support the Constitution over the Koran.

There is a huge gulf between what we need in leadership and and what they promise us: Newt is just another intellectual coward, and should be dismissed as such forthwith.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 17, 2006 10:28 AM

Authorities Probe Foreign Student Seeking Commercial Truck-Driving HAZMAT License
NEW YORK — Mohammed Yusef Mullawala wanted a license to transport hazardous materials and to learn how to drive commercial tractor trailers. There was nothing unusual about that, until he told his teacher that he only wanted to learn how to drive forward, and he wanted to learn fast

The climate of dhinmitude is growing and appeasers are getting the upper hand as the video 12 muslims illustrates the reluctance of the media to offend muslim sensibilities.

A fertile breeding ground is being created in the US which lends to more and more of this type incidents, once they start multiplying and gain momentum they will multiply like flies and Law enforcement will not be able to keep up.

Then a wave of seeming un connected but ideologically driven attacks will take place that will bring America to its knees.

http://cyberray-rays.blogspot.com/2006/12/from-funny-to-obnoxious.html#links

Posted by: Cyberray at December 17, 2006 10:40 AM

Thanks Caroline for confirming what me and many others , surely already suspected.
Under the umbrella of civil rights protection.
These are point men.
Expect them to push the envelope in other to find the weak points to pave the way for the soldiers of Allah that will be the 2nd wave.
this is only you could call reconnaisance missions.
Expect this to happen at railway stations, nuclear power plants, shippinmg ports.
As the weak points are being maaped out for future attack, the achilles heel is being studied in detail while the trojan horse is being built.

Posted by: Cyberray at December 17, 2006 10:51 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote:

"On TV minutes ago, Newt just conceded to the Tim Russert that the bulk of American Moslems are moderate, and support the Constitution over the Koran.

There is a huge gulf between what we need in leadership and and what they promise us: Newt is just another intellectual coward, and should be dismissed as such forthwith."

I'm afraid Alarmed Pig Farmer is probably correct. I saw the same broadcast just a few minutes ago and I noticed Newt hastened to add the customary riff about "Muslim patriots" praising the FBI's arrest of the thwarted Jihadist in Rockford, Illinois. It's too bad also because I like Newt personally and think he would make a good president. Unfortunately, he seems as unwilling as most other politicians to face Islam for what it really is. Please Newt, face reality and understand something - There are no "Moslem patriots."

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at December 17, 2006 11:02 AM

Although there are a significant number of issues that I disagree with Newt about, this is not one of them. Well said.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at December 17, 2006 11:05 AM

Who is good enough to be the pres, does anyone pass the smell test? I have a great idea, let’s blow off any pol that does not come right out and say islam is the problem. That way we will end up with the same results as 2006, real smart. Who is going to lead these anti jihadists, no one seems to be qualified so in the end you will have no leader at all. In my coaching days I never told my opponent what I was up to, that would have been beyond stupid. You want to try to grab the whole ball of wax at once, you may end up with nothing at all. Newt for President, this is a guy I can work with.

Posted by: tgusa at December 17, 2006 11:19 AM

Amazing!
Even more amazing is dhimmi media is reporting it but, most only likely to elicit jihad by c.a.i.r., a.c.l.u., the Pelosi-gang, and their legions of useful dhimmi idiots against Newt and like-minded.

Posted by: TINBH at December 17, 2006 11:20 AM

This is good stuff. He's looking more and more like a serious presidential contender.

Posted by: Null at December 17, 2006 11:22 AM

Too bad there wasn't any red neck Rambo type , x-special forces on that plane, Because having been raised in the deep south I know people that if they thought their family or friends were threatened would not hesitate to put a ball point pen through one of these clowns. I guarantee you once we start acting like men instead of mice, they will think twice about pulling stunt like that.

Posted by: Cyberray at December 17, 2006 11:40 AM

Time to play that old Sinatra tune again:

http://www.beecy.net/frank/

Posted by: Stendec at December 17, 2006 12:03 PM

I posted this at the end of a thread so in case most people missed it -

I have noticed your problem with the flying imams and there has been a bit of an anti-profiling campaign only here in the UK. It's difficult to say whether it is been successful or not because the only thing in Parliament that can be relied on to tell the truth at the moment it is the clock on Big Ben.

But as to your problem it's a question of law, and the law can do anything you want it to if you get the words right.

For example about 400 years ago there was a rebellion of Catholics in the North of England and it was so extensive that the government had no option but to grant concessions and free pardons to the leaders. When there was a second smaller rebellion a few years later to leaders of the first rebellion knew that you didn't push your luck with King Henry VIII. So they took no part in the new outbreak and advised the people to do the same.

Nevertheless than they were arrested for high treason and executed. Why? The government lawyer's argued that had they been truly loyal subjects of the King they would organise resistance to the rebellion. Therefore by not fighting the rebels they were aiding them and that was treason.

Using the same logic,

In times of danger it is the duty of ALL citizens regardless of their race or creed did give all possible moral and physical assistance to the legally constituted government.

In Britain and Europe up to the 20th century it was the practice of any group whose loyalty might be suspect to make positive declarations of support and patriotism to the government.

By accepting profiling as a reasonable precaution not only are American Muslims greatly assisting the work of the security services they are demonstrating their patriotism and commitment to their country and their concern for the lives and anxieties of their fellow citizens.

Young Americans are being killed every day in the Middle East and American Muslims are refusing them this simple gesture of support. One could go further and say and that by refusing to accept profiling they are hindering the work of the security services and therefore giving active assistance to the enemy.

And that is treason.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Fred at December 17, 2006 12:15 PM

tgusa: "Newt for President, this is a guy I can work with."

Just wanted to weigh in and say that I've been having the same thoughts for almost a year now. I don't understand why he is polling so low among Republicans right now.

Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2006 12:15 PM

First, what these imams did was the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. Free speech rights do not cover such behavior.

Second, regarding the "Muslim Patriots": how many of them are in the mosque when "death to America" is preached? The men who carried out the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center (which could have easily had a casualty rate in the high five figures if they had packed that truck with more explosives) attended a mosque in Jersey City. Surely there were "Muslim patriots" in that mosque. What did they do?

I'm sure Newt is right that most American Muslims are moderate and don't seek to commit violence against America. The question is: are they willing to turn in their fellow Muslims who don't share their beliefs in peace and freedom? Are they willing to withhold support from Muslim "charities" that have military wings?
Actions speak louder than words.

The difference between America and Muslim society is personified by David Kacyznski, the brother of the unabomber. He turned in his own brother after reading the unabomber manifesto in the newspaper and coming to the realization that his brother might be carrying out acts of violence on innocents. Where are the Muslims who are willing to do the same?

Posted by: PMK at December 17, 2006 12:16 PM

Maybe more Politicians will grow a pair and tell it like it is.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 17, 2006 12:16 PM

Absolutely they should be arrested and charged. One doesn't have to be blown to pieces to be terrorized.
They were engaging in terrorism just the same as if they'd intended to kill every one of those people on the plane.

Posted by: BorgQueen at December 17, 2006 12:27 PM

PMK makes an excellent comparison to the Unabomber's brother and his actions versus the "moderate Muslims" lack of action. For me, the point has long past when I ceased caring about the distinction between "moderate" and "radical" so long as one remains a Muslim. There is absolutely no reason to remain a Muslim in the 21st century! None of Islam's claims have any truth to them whatsoever. Even a relatively shoddy framework like Marxism can reveal the underlying BS of the Islamic "religion", nevermind bringing out the "big guns" like Kant or Wittgenstein. Only a retard could possibly place Mohammed on the same plane as those Western thinkers. Of course, Muslims are so closed off to the rest of the world that none of them read Kant or Wittgenstein, perpetuating their wallowing in ignorance. I only hope that we soon bring the full power of scientific thinking against these primitive children.

Posted by: venividivici at December 17, 2006 12:32 PM

Who's your ideal choice for President in 2008 from the viewpoint of the issue of defeating Jihad and why? I don't follow US politics too closely.

Posted by: chinubhai86 at December 17, 2006 12:37 PM

Caroline,
I don’t agree with all this writer says but the poll results at the end are interesting. Newt is just getting started.
http://www.eyeon08.com/2006/11/13/gingrich-taking-the-right-flank/
Remember Ronald Reagan? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912,00.html
Let’s face it, the dems are moving toward a carteresque platform, and we all know where that leads them.
How about Newt / Mitt and then Mitt / Tom and then?

Posted by: tgusa at December 17, 2006 12:38 PM

I really wish Newt would run for President in '08!....and win the Republican nomination....We need someone with the balls to stand up to these Islamo-wankers, and not someone who says "this great religion has been hijacked".......NEWT FOR PRES IN '08!.....

Posted by: Oiznop at December 17, 2006 12:49 PM

And let’s not forget how wrong they all were,
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html

Posted by: tgusa at December 17, 2006 12:50 PM

I raise the matter again: is there a law that makes behavior calculated to agitate on planes and in or around other means of public transportation (subways, busses, trains) punishable as a crime?...

Hugh, if anything they should have been charged with disrupting the progress of an areonautical flight, and/or disorderly conduct.....They were praying at the top of their lungs intentionally, to make the others around them uneasy.....They should at the very least been made to pay a substantial fine for such violations.....

Posted by: Oiznop at December 17, 2006 12:52 PM

H.CON.RES.275 Check out this bill.
It is a resolution to Saudi Arabia. About educating Jihadists.
It's in Senate (probably forever) foriegn relations commitee.
These guys know what is going on they just pretend not to.

Posted by: auntbea at December 17, 2006 12:54 PM

When a group of mature and presumeably sane men conduct themselves in the manner reported by fellow US Airways passengers, there can be only be one reason - deliberate provocation. Alternative assumptions simply fly in the face of "sanity".

If there is not a law that punishes behavior that causes people severe emotional distress, especially when flying, there should be.

I'm with Newt.

ohara

Posted by: OHara at December 17, 2006 12:58 PM

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/

Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that
"no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

Posted by: Bar at December 17, 2006 1:03 PM

Quoting Hugh Fitzgerald:

The phrase "moderate Muslim" should not be used unless it is clearly defined. I suggest that any Muslim who misleads non-Muslims about the central tenets of Islam -- whether or not he agrees with them -- is objectively furthering the Jihad by rendering non-Muslims unwary and keeping them in a state of naive trustingness that can only cause them harm.

If it has been done, forgive me, and please post the link. If it has not been done, then I propose JW should host a thread soliciting definitions of "What is a Moderate Muslim", amalgamate these into a codified list, and be the first to DEFINE a Moderate Muslim.

Then, when any dip comes along and blithely states "the majority of 'Moderate Muslims' support _____ [insert issue here]", we can immediately refer to polling data proving that "Moderate Muslims" do or do not "support ____", make him/her look like an idiot, and start getting rid of this bizarre and dangerous miasmic "pleasant fiction" we are living under.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 1:07 PM

Let’s face it, the dems are moving toward a carteresque platform, and we all know where that leads them. by tgusa

With the Dems in power, and if they take the White House in '08, they will be leading us in that direction.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 17, 2006 1:09 PM

The sheer chutzpah of these Islamo-maggots! They are allowed to immigrate here. Then within a few years they are aggressive and in your face with Americans who have lived here for generations. Islam teaches these maggots that the world is their oyster. That the planet rightfully belongs to their awful ummah.

So they come to America and start jerking around real Americans. I would never dream of behaving like a jackass in a foreign country but Muslims have no problem with it. Because they feel they own the world. My blood is boiling

My loathing for their false prophet and phony Koran is getting greater every day. Muslims are way too pleased with the way Islam and jihad is growing worldwide. With the way they are undermining America, Canada,Australia and Europe

Posted by: dennisw at December 17, 2006 1:10 PM

One more sidebit on the Imams Conference:

One of the six, Omar Shahin, president of the NAIF
also lectures at the American Open University, a "distance learning" center in Alexandria, VA (nicknamed "Wahhabi Online" by law-enforcement www.aou.edu) which has graduated many members of the Imams Federation. One of Cong.-elect Keith Ellison's lectures at the Nov. 19 NAIF conference included a session called simply "American Open University." CAIR is also a partner with AOU.

American Open University is founded by Jaafar Sheikh Idris (www.jaafaridris/English.htm), a Sudanese radical educated in Saudi Arabia:
"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

"No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors, and details of living."
(original source WorldNetDaily.com)

But could a Muslim become a congressman?

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 1:12 PM

"Pretending" to be terrorists? Who says they were "pretending"...

Posted by: CaptainGrevious at December 17, 2006 1:15 PM

It's really hard to find love in our hearts during this Christmas season for those Muslims whose infantile sense of humour desires to scare the infidels as they travel aboard airplanes to visit their families and loved ones. How do you find Agape of Christian love for Muslims? It is really hard, since they are so very much undeserving. Loving Muslims is really really hard. They make it so easy to hate them instead.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at December 17, 2006 1:17 PM

"That is, has the intentional infliction of emotional distress, normally a civil wrong, been criminalized, at the Federal level, so that there is a way to punish such behavior? " -poster above

Such a question is a prelude to the exact kind of "incitement to hatred" gag laws now proliferating in Europe.

Who are the beneficiaries of these laws? Who exploit them cynically and mercilessly to advance their cause and claim victimhood under the aegis of such laws?

Muslims.

If we begin enacting such Federal laws, the Muslims who project their terror minds and intentions onto us would allege "intentional infliction of emotional distress" for criticizing Islam, for demonstrating in front of their heinous mosques, for writing about Islam in a critical or derisive manner, for resisting Islam and its advancement in any way.

We don't need such laws. We shouldn't be calling for such laws. If such laws exist, they should be expunged.

I am not against writing laws which target specific behaviors of Muslims, since they are the perpetrators of a concerted multifaceted war on us. These so-called "Flying Imams" went to great lengths to imitate the terror methods of Muslim hijackers -- whether to probe for weaknesses, degrade our responses, or deliberately subvert our anti-Jihad efforts -- these were acts of war by Muslims (and high priests of Islam to boot) to further Islam and their Jihad...

We must stop shackling all Americans because a few million Muslims live and practice sedition on our soil.

These Imams engaged in an act of Islamic war. There are already plenty of laws for to deal with such activity.

To identify Islamic principles with a doctrine of war would be a great beginning.

Posted by: jsla at December 17, 2006 1:32 PM

Hallelujah! A US pol willing to say it straight! May there be more to stand up.

You islamists who pull this crap, you will get yours. No amount of CAIR Hooper BS is going to stop us from taking our country back. We are on to you.

Posted by: BB at December 17, 2006 1:36 PM

Thank you Newt. I've been posting about this for the past week. If this was a plan (conspiracy) to disrupt air travel, then the Justice Dept should investigate.

Posted by: sparrow at December 17, 2006 1:43 PM

(Warning: Slightly off topic)

You know, you guys, I know it'll never happen but wouldn't it be great if Michael Savage became president? :)

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at December 17, 2006 1:46 PM

Fear does strange things to people. I wouldn't be surprised if this situation repeats itself only with different results such as red blooded american men beating the crap out of these terrorizers.

Posted by: dms at December 17, 2006 1:56 PM

"Fear does strange things to people. I wouldn't be surprised if this situation repeats itself only with different results such as red blooded american men beating the crap out of these terrorizers."

We've already seen what can happen when Americans are pushed too far while in an airplane. Remember that fourth plane on 9/11. Thanks to several brave Americans, those four hijackers died before reaching their target.

Posted by: PMK at December 17, 2006 2:14 PM

"[Newt] He was demonized by the leftist media."

-- ZenaWarriorPrincess

"On TV minutes ago, Newt just conceded to the Tim Russert that the bulk of American Moslems are moderate"

-- Alarmed Pig Farmer.

1) The fact that it was Newt who was able to come out and say the Imams should have been arrested shows that the Republican Party, Conservatism, and the Right Wing contain more rationality than the Democratic Party and Leftism.

2) The fact that Newt said soon after that most American Muslims are moderate (coupled with the fact that virtually no other conservatives have seen fit to speak truth to power similarly) shows that even though #1 is true, nevertheless the Republican Party, Conservatism, and the Right Wing have become significantly infected with PC Multiculturalism, a sociopolitical disease that historically originated from the Leftist orbit but has now become dominant and mainstream.

There, now why can't the fact of these two points ever be made here at Jihad Watch officially? Why must they be incessantly needled apart in order to push prescription over description?

Posted by: remote_control at December 17, 2006 2:17 PM

Just in case anyone cares to sound off to the media

http://americancongressfortruth.com/media-room.asp

Posted by: dms at December 17, 2006 2:47 PM

"Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists," Gingrich said.

I have been saying that all along...what does Newt mean 'pretending' to be terrorists. They were/are terroists and the Law has set them free. 'I fought the law...and the Law won', Apparently this does not apply to muslim terrorists in this country.
Maybe the citizens terrorized on the plane could get together and file charges against these 'Imamms', since the paid law enforcement agents wont do it.

I want to know 'who' gave the order to not arrest or prosecute these terrorists. That person should be given the bums rush fron his job. We dont need incompetents like that defending us...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 17, 2006 2:48 PM

My cousin is a pilot. They do not let anyone stay on the plane that acts in any way that looks unpredictable or dangerous. I agree. They should have been arrested.

Posted by: Abby at December 17, 2006 2:53 PM

According to the dictionary, those imams were terrorists. It doesn't have to be physical.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorize

Posted by: dms at December 17, 2006 3:06 PM

venividivici-
Above you wrote 'For me, the point has long past when I ceased caring about the distinction between "moderate" and "radical" so long as one remains a Muslim.' I felt exactly the same way after reading "While Europe Slept" and found Jihad Watch and others like it this past summer. I now feel the opposite. Do you really think we can remove muslim beliefs from this world, or even my beloved America? I think we all need to be realistic and focus on killing off all of the dangerous and oppressive beliefs that go along with Islam by whatever means necessary, it's a simple matter of self preservation after all. Yes, I agree that there have been little if any contributions to the improvement of the world by muslims, but if there are true peaceful muslims, who cares what they believe?

You also write "I only hope that we soon bring the full power of scientific thinking against these primitive children". Are you suggesting starting a pissing contest pitting one religion against another, or to discredit all religion altogether? Or by full power do you mean the physical product of scientific thinking, which, seems to be a good idea in some countries, but to cause too much collateral damage in others?

Don't get me wrong, I believe the lying imams are real garbage. By the way, did anyone think to check if they asked for seat belt extenders on the flight they eventually took, or what their other behaviors were? Maybe CAIR, the Al Sharpton of the muslims, should be asked this. (Off topic: let's see where sharpton comes out on the killing of a lunatic by police, of a man with a russian name, just hours after his protest march)

I believe Spencer and Fitzgerald have it right in promoting change in ideology as being the only reasonable solution when all things are considered. Destroy the ones that can't or won't be changed. The American public and the West in general needs alot of education, and "muslims without radical beliefs" have to assist in this change. Am I wrong in this?

Posted by: JBarsimson at December 17, 2006 3:13 PM

It's encouraging that Gingrich took that position on the Imam incident, whether or not he fully "gets" the overall picture of the danger that the Islamic ideology, as it stands now, presents to our nation and our way of life. I'm an optimist, I'll take it as a good sign.

I also agree that the Imams should be charged with making a terroristic threat due to their actions in carrying through with this ruse. It was intended to frighten and it was intended to provoke, especially with 9-11 still fresh in the minds of all air travelers. That's terrorism through threat.

Their agenda was probably to help the passing of non-profiling laws, but their methods were criminal. Their actions demonstrate a sense of entitlement that blinds them to all common decency with regard to their fellow passengers and to the country in which they live. To me, their ruse is tantamount to saying, 'We don't give a damn about the lives lost in 9-ll, and we don't give a damn about making America safer. We just care about ourselves, how we're treated as Muslims. We require special treatment and special regard because we're members of Allah's only true religion.'

When the government asked the people of the United States after 9-11 to be more aware of their surroundings and to report suspicious activity, they should have been prepared to back up the citizens who actually care enough about the country to take the government's advice. That is why I think the feds should step in and bring charges against the Imams. It's the right thing to do legally AND it encourages and justifies vigilance on the part of the American people. It also would serve as a deterrent to other Muslims who would attempt to build on the faulty, self-centered ground of the flying Imams.

Posted by: leper at December 17, 2006 3:51 PM

americaningermany said

read this ONE telling post from one "Naseem" in Pakistan

"She" doesn't even need to make one post anymore to derail a thread. We kafirs are doing it for "her". "She's" training us well.

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 3:54 PM

I think we need to keep Newt’s follow-on comments in context. First and foremost, he moved the debate forward. Romney speaks of eavesdropping in Mosques, Gingrich speaks of arresting men who claim to be victims and honoring the ‘victimizers’ in the White House. The stage is being set for the debate that will come when the Iraqis demand political asylum sometime during the Presidential contest. I think he’s keeping his powder dry. Thanks Newt, keep it up.

Posted by: limes at December 17, 2006 3:54 PM

CaptainGrevious said

"Pretending" to be terrorists? Who says they were "pretending"...

Beat me to it. If they are trying to push through legislation that makes it illegal to remove disruptive and suspicious passengers, they are assisting the terrorists. It is not pretending, this is real. This is not a test.

But that's the only thing I could disagree with Newt on in his statement (not counting his later appearance with Tim Russert).

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 4:01 PM

American, Hi!

Good points.

I put this on another post last night but it was late so I don't think anyone saw it. I saw Mel's movie, Apocalypto, last week and it dawned on me that Islam is just another religion that worships a demon and not the true God. Think about it, the beheadings, the honor killings, the rapes to force women into submission, it's all calculated to terrorize people into not standing up and saying, no, this is wrong. These killings are just a new way to offer human sacrifice to the same old demon god. The Koran says to do these things in the name of Allah, for Allah, at the command of Allah. I mean, does killing a sister who has been raped really restore the honor of a family? Or does it appease with blood the voracious appetite of the ancient pseudo "god" who has a chip on his shoulder because he's not really God? If so, there isn't enough blood in the world to appease that loser. And just like the Mayans, it was done because one group got together and made an agreement that things would be better if another group was used to appease their gods. And as long as it's not happening to you it's okay, right?!

The thing that disturbs me almost more than anything is how Muslims DON'T stand up and protect their fellow man, DON'T lay down their lives for others and don't commit random acts of charity. At least I've heard of no stories where they do. They kill themselves for the illusive glory of heaven and a sensual reward but they do not lay down their lives for their friends. And because they don't they miss out on a higher spiritual plane. How awful to live your life fueled by hate and then die so that you can engage in an eternity of getting laid. How empty and pathetic that is, and all the declarations of peace and serenity by Muslims such as Naseem and Maryam can't make it so.

BTW, I also observed that Naseem was whining because you didn't want to be her friend. Oh, BOO-HOO-HOO!! That's another thing Muslims don't get. Friendship is based on mutual respect, care and love for the other person. If I told you that you had to convert to Islam or die but, gee, I still really want to be friends, I'm wondering how fast you would hurry towards me to sign on for that! I guess these folks are so used to getting their way that they don't have a clue that some of us will not stand for that kind of crap and just let them get away with it. Luckily Muslims have missed the deeper drive in Americans, the yearning to be free and the understanding that it takes vigilance to keep that right. Since they don't understand that concept we definitely have an edge. And since Naseem whined to you about not being her friend, there's proof that she doesn't get it.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 17, 2006 4:10 PM

Newt is one of the few political leader who gets it (he IS a former pofessor of history after all). Islam is the ONLY religion that has holy war as an article of faith. As such, it's "religious" leaders should get special treatment. Unfortunately, most political leaders only come up with stuff like Rumsfeld. In his interview with Cal Thomas, he effectively proposes renaming the war on terror the "long stuggle against a small number of violent extermists".....

"So "war on terror" has a problem for me, and I've worked to try to reduce the extent to which that's used, and increase the extent to which we understand it more as a long war or a struggle or a conflict, not against terrorism but against a relatively small number, but terribly dangerous and lethal, violent extremists. I say "violent extremists" because an extremist that goes off in a closet and is extreme is not bothering people. But an extremist who has those views and insists on imposing them on free people strikes at the very heart of what free people are. They're people who want to be able to get up in the morning and go where they want and say what they want and do what they want, and that is exactly the opposite of the vision of violent extremists."

He apparently came to this epiphany while meeting the Sultan of Dubai in a very hot tent. Maybe we can get Osama to get in that closet with those other extremists? Rumsfeld and others seem totally unaware that there is a 1400 year record of jihad aggression against non-muslim countries, which waxes and wanes not according to some sort theological developments, but acording to the amount of muslim military power that dictates the extent of jihad that can be practically carried out at a point in time. It is only in that historical context that the current situation can be understood.

Due to muslim military weakness, jihad had been toned down in the 20th century, as they are acquiring military power thorough oil money, it is on the rise. They do not yet have the power to challenge the west militarly in a direct fashion, so they resort to terrorist groups, which is jihad by proxy, and presents a plausibly deniable way of attacking the west. The jihad theology is still dominant in Islam, there is no reason to believe that an acquisition of sufficient military power by muslim countries to the extent where they thought a conventional invasion of their western non-muslim neighbors was feasible would not result in the same result as we see in the rest history (see Turkey and Cyprus, Israel and the Arab states, Pakistan and India, etc.).

Fact is, if you air drop Osama in any random country Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, he would be welcomed and feted as a hero by the general populace. If you air drop Rumsfeld in those same "allied" countries minus police protection, he wouldn't make it a block before being stoned or beheaded, which goes against Rumsfeld's "small number of extremists theory".

So the German civilians got firebombed in Dresden, but Rumsfeld won't even use the word muslim in the same sentence as extremists for fear of emotionally hurting innocent muslim civilians? If Hitler declared himself a prophet sent by God to correct the revelations of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, and declared nazism a religion, would that make WWII wrong?

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 17, 2006 4:23 PM

remote_control:
Talk about prescriptive. Have you seen the recent piece by John Lewis? "No Substitute For Victory" The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

Posted by: traeh at December 17, 2006 4:32 PM

Newt's right...

Had these assclowns been some joe-sixpack rednecks they would have been arrested and charged with interfering with a flight.

Talk about double-standard...

Posted by: jcom972 at December 17, 2006 4:36 PM

The criticism of Newt's reference to "Muslim patriots" seems overblown. I just saw the show and he spent a lot of time going into how we just might have to trample on their free speech rights if they attempt to plan attacks on the US. The "patriot" reference was regarding the jihadist arrested in Illinois. He said the American Muslims supported the FBI's move, while the ACLU accused the FBI of entrapment.
We have to admit that not all Muslims are out to destroy America. The ACLU might be another matter.

Posted by: PMK at December 17, 2006 4:49 PM

Isabellathecrusader
Islam is a pagan cult same as the Mayans (and uncredited Aztecs) of Apocalypto which really takes artistic liberties. Those pyramids are really Aztec pyramids where the priest carves out the captured warrior's heart

Judaism was a rebellion against the human sacrificing pagans of it's time

Good movie by the way!

Posted by: dennisw at December 17, 2006 4:56 PM

Concerned Citizen...There can be no definition of 'moderate muslim', because as far as I am can see, there are no moderate muslims. According to thier own literature, they are 'obligated' to participate and support jihad, or die a hypocrite.
Then there is this:

Qur'an:9:19"Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Mosque, equal to those who fight in the Cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah. Those who believe, and left their homes, striving with might, fighting in Allah's Cause with their goods and their lives, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah."

No muslim wants to have lesser rank in the eye's of Allah. That's haram if anything is. Pleasing Allah is paramount. To do less than that may not get muslims into paradise, but it might get them thrown into the fire.

And this:Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."

Catch the last line, and the first line, and all the lines in between. Thats the closest thing we get to a 'moderate muslim'. One who really does not want to jihad, but will do so anyway, because Allah has 'ordained warfare, and they are 'Obligated' to do so. Thats because Allah says it is good for them. And Allah knows best...
So there are two kinds of jihadists, the direct action terrorist blowing things up, and murdering people, and the less physical jihadist, who wage psychological jihad or lend tactical support.
Niether one of them is 'moderate', and thats all there is...
Naseem is a psychological jihadist...not a very good one, but 'they' try...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 17, 2006 4:58 PM

traeh,

I will be finishing the Lewis article soon. My point all along is that one's prescriptions suffer to the degree that one's descriptions are not accurate. Spencer hammers that point excellently when challenging so-called moderate Muslims; but he and his colleagues and many fellow travelers seem to abandon it when dealing with the gigantic problem of PC and the Leftist nebula in which it was born and from which continues to derive sustenance, putting the prescriptive goal of unity of Left and Right above the descriptive reality of the very Left-Right dynamic that is concretely hindering that unity.

Posted by: remote_control at December 17, 2006 5:03 PM

Much of jihadist activities and efforts like proselytizing or 'peaceful' da'awa is spent on obscuring, deflecting and confusing the infidel.

I once had a chat with one Muslim who became so exasperated with my 'recalcitrance' that he burst out and said something like:

'The best way to conquer an enemy is to make believe that no threat exists...'

This is something that stayed in my mind forever....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 17, 2006 5:05 PM

Like leper and limes, I agree that we have to take what we can get from our leaders. Unless Robert or Hugh can be persuaded to run (even as a Ralph Nader or Steve Forbes-style single-issue candidate with no realistic chance of doing anything other than raising public awareness), we are guaranteed to choose the lesser evil at election time. None of our leaders gets it, nobody. If somebody can at least comment on the jihad once in a while, that's something. Not much, but something. Where's the Winston Churchill, willing to take a hard stand on principle, regardless of what the short-term effect is on their political career? [Churchill spoke out against the danger of Nazi Germany, was thrown out of office as a war monger, then was brought back after WWII started. Later, in a show of gratitude, he was thrown out again after WWII ended].

I'm just cynical enough to wonder if these occasional statements are fund-raisers. I.e. say just enough to get the attention of those persons (perhaps living on a certain oil-laden peninsula) with deep pockets who might be willing to donate heavily to a candidate (perhaps through an untraceable third or fourth party) in return for dropping the issue. I'm cynical enough to wonder, but not cynical enough to believe it. Yet.

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 5:06 PM

traeh, check out the John Lewis thread, where I commented on his essay.

Posted by: remote_control at December 17, 2006 5:29 PM

The best thing could have happened that a couple of guys should have beaten the crap out of them (Imams). The airline would have had to take Imams and couple of guys off that flight. Then Imams could never have tried to sue the airline.

I think whenever there is a group of Moslim 'scholars' board a flight, the airlines should carry a couple of husslers who could turn this kind of event into something thats not worthy a MSM reporting. We could pre-empt many Islamic/CAIR attempts to bring in pro-Islamic laws into our country.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 17, 2006 5:34 PM

thanks Caroline
He described how he and his friends whispered to each other on the flight, made simultaneous visits to the restroom, and generally tried to "spook" the other passengers. He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying.

The others in the room thought the story was quite amusing, judging from the laughter. The imam stood up and told the group that this was a kind of peaceful civil disobedience that should be encouraged, and commended Khaled and his friends for their efforts.

He pointed out that it was through this kind of civil disobedience that ethnic profiling would fail."

well even if it is funny to this idiot and his mullahwhen he pulled his against the law and he should with his friendsbe charged with act of terrorism and then let's see how amusing is mullah and this group of thugs find it and are doing 10 years in prison for it . Civil disobedience is far different from what these creatures were pulling

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 17, 2006 5:43 PM

IMAMS are representative of Moderates.

Are there moderate members of the Mafia Cult? NO!

Islam is also a murderous CULT and should be designated a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Posted by: paulc37 at December 17, 2006 5:45 PM

The transcript from this morning's Meet the Press with Newt is online now.

A choice nugget:

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, let’s start with an incident recently in Illinois where the FBI sold hand grenades to a jihadist who wanted to go into a mall at Christmas and blow up himself and as many people as possible. The FBI now reports—and by the way, the local Muslim community thanked the FBI for trapping him, and the ACLU was worried that entrapment was involved. Just take those two standards. The local Muslims who are Americans and patriots and don’t want to be blown up in the mall thought it was terrific to arrest this guy for trying to buy hand grenades, and the ACLU thought there’s probably a real infringement of his legal right to be stupid.

MR. RUSSERT: But they’re Americans and patriots as well.

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Yeah, Americans and patriots as well, but they’re suicidal in my judgment. So second, the, the FBI now reports that this jihadist almost certainly became a jihadist—he’s an American living in Illinois, and he’s getting on the Internet and he’s reading hate and he’s reading recruitment and he’s reading how to be a jihadist. Now, why would you tolerate that? I mean, in a free society that’s trying to survive? You know...

MR. RUSSERT: So close down Web sites.

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.

Read it all:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16153676/

Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 6:03 PM

JBarsimson,

I say that Muslims who proclaim themselves "moderate" still should be willing to make a show of "good faith" to the rest of the world by renouncing Islam. Sure, some of them will do so with an eye to fooling us "infidels", but hopefully their idiotic beliefs about heaven and hell and saving face will minimize those strategic apostasies. I came to this conclusion after reading one too many stories about "sudden jihad syndrome" and decided then and there that "peaceful Muslim" was a contradiction in terms and the renunciation was necessary. I consider renouncing Islam to be akin to a form of "intellectual hygiene". Even if I were born a Muslim, by now I would have become so disgusted with my religion that I would renounce it, death sentence for apostacy be damned. I also think that every known copy of the Koran should be destroyed and preaching based on the Koran forbidden. I see zero value in anything Islamic. I have a more than passing acquaintance with Western philosophy and I can definitively say that Islamic "philosophy" is the product of mental midgets. One sentence of Aristotle is worth more than the entire Koran, hadiths, suras and whatever other canonical texts exist in Islam.

Yes, I think we should bring the physical product of scientific thinking to them in the form of the destruction of all their military infrastructure. They are too retarded mentally to understand that science isn't religion, so trying to disprove Islamic doctrines by showing that they contradict science would just be a waste of time. I look at Islam as the most successful of the primitive, tribal forms of religion, in the sense that it has expanded further than any other. Unfortunately for Islam, the historical death knell for primitive religion, the European Enlightenment, has already sounded. All of the intellectual tools exist for defeating the ideology of Islam, but, there was another side to the Enlightenment, a sort of pseudo-Enlightenment, that ended up formulating the doctrines of political correctness and multiculturalism, which prevent the full force of the Enlightment critique of despotism to be utilized against the despotism of Islam. We should be saying to them continually that their religion doesn't withstand scrutiny and for them to become fully human they need to give it up. Can you imagine if Bush said that instead of his incessant religion of peace BS?

The sad thing is that I know none of my suggestions for dealing with Islam will come to pass because too many of my Western brethren have lost their ability to correctly analyse the potential outcomes and formulate correct policies today to prevent disaster tomorrow. Well, nature is a cruel mistress and won't take care of those who won't take care of themselves. My backup plan is to put in place a set of investments that will profit from the coming doom, then move to a yacht off the coast somewhere or to Bermuda. I anticipate that the stock market will crash 25-50% if NYC goes up in a mushroom cloud, even though all those systems are backed up in secure locations and eventually the market would start trading again. The sad thing is that doesn't have to happen, but with the policies in place today, it's inevitably going to happen. The other sad thing is that my profits will probably be confiscated as "windfall" profits by Pelosi et al., probably to fund "sensitivity" seminars for those who want to retaliate "disproportionately", and I'll end up in the same position as those who are in favor of the appeasement policies that will lead to the destruction of a US city. I am aware how ghoulish it sounds to talk about profiting off of something so horrific, but what is a man to do when everyone else is such a bunch of bloomin' idiots?

Posted by: venividivici at December 17, 2006 6:13 PM

venividivici-
I understand and agree with alot of your commentary, but targeted military response seems to be like skin cream on a body riddled with cancer, and I just don't see ridding the world of a religion as an alternative. "what is a man to do when everyone else is such a bunch of bloomin' idiots?" That is what these discussions are all about.

americaningermany-
Thanks for your response. You say "Let's try to name the reasons WHY our politicians and lawmakers refuse to name the OBVIOUS ENEMY!" I believe this is an excellent subject for discussion..

Are they scared?
Fear of violence, hmmmm. What do we do about that one? Tough to answer.

Do they feel it would be politically incorrect?
Hey, this is a country where blacks are called African Americans. I think that says lots. I have no prejudice against any blacks (or any immigrant desiring to contribute to our country), and have black friends, but I think the media calling them african americans, when they have been here for generations (at least put "American" first) sends a bad message. I guess currently you need politicians who don't whore for votes, but that may be an oxymoron. I have to believe that if enough of the country were properly educated to the threat that any politician who "gets it" can win, because the correct case will appeal to the majority.

Are they on the oil lobby payroll?
Another tough one. Identify and investigate all suspected, punish all the guilty appropriately.

I'm sure there are many other reasons why.

On another note, I believe using economic means to combat radical islam can be very effective. I believe in expanding the use of alternative energy and expanding oil & gas exploration in areas we control, but there is also a seemingly effective idea, which is linked on this website, DivestTerror.org, which uses the example of how South Africa was rid of Apartheid through economic boycotting. The problem is, the terrorism equivalent strategy promoted by this website seems to be to regulate public pension funds and have them divest in the stock in the 400 companies that do business in terrorist states. This does translate to a tremendous amount of money and would put pressure on any terrorist state to puke up the extremists. What is DivestTerror.org do? Who are they lobbying? Can laws be enacted which will perform this type of regulation? When I read into it, I immediately tried to find out the list of the 400 companies referred to, so I could take personal action on this, and found that the company behind it wants you to subscribe to their service to analyze your portfolio for possible companies doing business in terrorist states. Someone should publish that list for the masses and organize that idea. Yes the pension funds could put pressure, but so can the general public! We can all divest our own stocks and funds containing any of these. I am no economist and suppose that there are other implications of this effort, if successful on a large scale, which may affect us negatively, but the idea seems plausible.

I have to say, these message boards really do inspire some excellent information sharing and comments from the posters and that is very encouraging. Lepers comment above "When the government asked the people of the United States after 9-11 to be more aware of their surroundings and to report suspicious activity, they should have been prepared to back up the citizens who actually care enough about the country to take the government's advice. That is why I think the feds should step in and bring charges against the Imams. It's the right thing to do legally AND it encourages and justifies vigilance on the part of the American people. It also would serve as a deterrent to other Muslims who would attempt to build on the faulty, self-centered ground of the flying Imams." Dead on. The article referenced by traeh "No Substitute for Victory", great stuff.

Peaceful muslims should ask themselves this- If your religion was "hijkacked" would you go after it to bring it back? Punish the hijackers? Put methods in place to precent further hijackings? Just what would you do?

Sorry to ramble on.

Posted by: JBarsimson at December 17, 2006 6:37 PM

Active thread and very good posts after a while.

JBarsimson:
I agree with you regarding the fact that current approach to defeat jihadists are puerile.

take an example of eradicating poppy: Law enforcement personnel are employed to pluck mature poppy fruits and destroy leaving the crop and poppy fields intact. Will this ever work?

Jihadists are not born in vacuum. There is a civil substratum on which they grow and will keep growing. If you want to defeat jihadist then you need to destroy the supporting civil substatum, i.e will of the civil society to support jihadists.

In fact I recall reading in a website that "War against terrorism" is misconceived. Terrorism is just a tactic. It is similar to declaring war against sneak attacks. War against terrorism has to be re-imagined to make it more concrete."

Posted by: Desi at December 17, 2006 6:56 PM

duh_swami,

There can be no definition of 'moderate muslim', because as far as I am can see, there are no moderate muslims.

You have to define it before you can say whether or not there are any.

I don't know if any will be found by a JW formulated definition. But it would do a lot toward discrediting some, and hopefully inspiring some others.

Some of the parts of the "job description" for a Moderate Muslim would include that a Moderate Muslim does not

Lie about historical Islamic tenets
Fund charities which support jihad
Speak or write different opinions for Western and Islamic audiences
Advocate or perform violent acts
Support Islam as a political system
etc.

A Moderate Muslim would

Renounce literal interpretations of violent admonitions in the Qur'an and Sunnah
Promote perpetual peaceful coexistance
Support the laws, constitution, and unique historical identity of their host country in perpetuity
Expose their fellow co-religionists to the secular authorities when found or suspected of wrongdoing

etc, etc, etc. These lists (positive and negative should be extensive and cover every possible contingency.

To just say, "there are and can be no Moderate Muslims" is to say the same as Mahathir Mohamad. We need objective criteria for what can be called a "Moderate Muslim", because the term is so entrenched and used so casually, that it will never go away.

We need to build the mythical Moderate Muslim even if from scratch, for a standard by which to judge them.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 7:44 PM

Poor Newt-he's been called everything possible up to this point. Now he'll be tarred and feathered as another Islamophobe. Good for him!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 17, 2006 7:50 PM

Kudos Gingrich for stating what NEEDS to be stated regarding their exploitive actions. Thanks for that link Malinois- very informative. http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 17, 2006 8:54 PM

Hugh- you raise an important point on this issue- absolutely there should be laws enstated that criminalize terroristic type intimidations during war time, and peace time for that matter. Make the law, apply it to EVERYONE- no exceptions! and Stick by the convictions. CAIR and the ACLU can whine all they like- but we just don't care- Muslims are murdering people-

if the moderates in the religion don't liek the fact that the radicals have made it necessary to profile Muslims- then too bad- the moderates are doing absolutely nothing to counter the fact that Muslims have been responsible for terrorist acts throughout the world

Posted by: CottShop at December 17, 2006 8:59 PM

We do, CottShop...at least here in the US.
But the Sedition as well as Treason Acts have gone unmentioned because it tends to trounce upon someones sacred cow,and that someone is also responsible for, directly or indirectly, aiding and abetting in the destructionof the western world to begin with, with help from their friends in what we call the MSM...
...it's a cascade effect, but you get the idea.
We've endured it for decades...nothing new.

Posted by: jcom972 at December 17, 2006 9:27 PM

In kicking around the word treason and sedition, I came across this little gem while waiting for the 60 minutes bit about the repository of the german files being opened up.

CBS Sunday Evening News did a bit on the Muslims at West Point. In the interview of a couple of the cadets, one was asked, "Do you see yourself as being a patriot first and a Muslim second?" The guy waffled on the interviewer and said, "Well its more complicated than that."

What's more complicated? The interviewer let him off! As previous posters have stated, there are no moderate muslims.

Posted by: credit man at December 17, 2006 10:02 PM

Concerned Citizen: "If it has not been done, then I propose JW should host a thread soliciting definitions of "What is a Moderate Muslim", amalgamate these into a codified list, and be the first to DEFINE a Moderate Muslim"

This reminds me that almost a year ago a man who had been posting here and became disgruntled, started a a new blog to ostensibly "watch" jihadwatch, which he concluded was a hate site because of the cavalier and insensitive way many posters here appeared to refer to Muslims en masse. In the course of responding to him, I tried to express that the sometimes disparaging reference to "Muslims" by posters here was due to the fact that it was simply too difficult to qualify one's definition so as to exclude genuinely moderate Muslims each and every time every poster refers somewhat distastefully to "Muslims". My attempt to provide a disclaimer of sorts to him regarding the use of the term Muslim by many posters here contains what I suppose is my own personal definition of moderate Muslims:

[Note: this is intended to be a disclaimer from many JW posters who often use the term "Muslim" in an apparently derogatory manner in their posts]:

"If you are a Muslim who (all of the below):
1.rejects the concept of violent jihad
2. rejects the concept of dhimmitude
3. rejects Sharia law
4.rejects the division of the world into dar-al-islam and dar-all harb
5.believes in the firm separation of church and state
6.believes unequivocably in equal rights for women and homosexuals
7. rejects the idea that Jews are subhumans
8.rejects the moral example of Muhammad as "the perfect man"
9.places loyalty to your country above loyalty to the ummah
10. Accepts western principles of freedom of speech, including the right to criticize your prophet with no penalities for blasphemy
11. Believes unconditionally in freedom of religious conscience, including the right to apostasy
12. Rejects the legitimacy of taqiyyah for the purpose of spreading islam
13. and vows to hold by these views for as long as you so shall live

Then -

This [apparently disparaging] use of the term "Muslim" [by this poster at Jihad Watch] does not apply to you."

(I only added those brackets in the last paragraph today to put this whole exchange into some sort of context. It would certainly be easier to link to the original post and exchange but the man is a pest so I see no reason to do so.)

BTW - if all that was confusing, never mind. The important issue is whether those 13 points do or do not provide an adequate definition of a "Moderate Muslim".

Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2006 10:36 PM

Caroline,

Excellent post. I suppose the next hard step is defining how such a "Moderate" is still Muslim according to certain Islamofascists.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 11:17 PM

Caroline,

Excellent post. I suppose the next hard step is defining how such a "Moderate" is still Muslim according to certain Islamofascists.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 11:17 PM

Regarding Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate, this has been an interesting thread. (Thank you tgusa for the link to those straw poll results from Virgina). I guess I am still not quite grasping why Gingrich is considered unelectable relative to the other Republicans being considered. I was a lifelong Democrat (might as well officially switch my party affiliation at this point though so that I can vote in the primaries) but it still strikes me that the central things to consider in a candidate in 08 are 1) an intellectual grasp of the threat of Islam to the West (Newt being an historian and acknowledging that we are indeed in a long war which he has dubbed WWIII, suggests that he grasps the threat),whereas it is not clear at all to me that Guiliani,for example, grasps the threat or has the intelligence to do so at the same level as Newt, as tough as he appears on the surface 2) tough on immigration (McCain is an open-borders advocate - that ought to kill his prospects among Republicans outright - why is he still polling so high?), and 3)fiscally conservative (its going to take a whole lot of money to sustain a war like this for 50 years or more and the last thing we need is people playing on our sympathies for entitlements while keeping our borders wide open to the entire 3rd world and then complaining that people in the US are living in poverty come voting time).

I admit that I wasn't paying too much attention to Gingrich in the 80's. I was in my 20's and living the good and totally irresponsible life. But frankly I couldn't care less about stuff like abortion and gay marriage at this point. If we don't prevail over the Islamic Jihad, all those issues will become utterly irrelevant in 50 years (or sooner) anyway.

I found it amusing that one day out of the blue, my mother, a life-long knee-jerk democrat (who doesn't follow politics very closely at all) phoned me out of the blue to say that she had seen this guy, Newt Gingrich, on C-Span and she was thoroughly impressed.

So why exactly is Newt widely considered unelectable, even in a republican primary? Is this some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy or is there substance to it? I realize that JW doesn't normally appreciate this sort of political discussion, but seeing as how this thread is actually ABOUT Newt Gingrich, perhaps its not an entirely off-topic issue to raise, and frankly I'm just downright curious about the guy's prospects and the pros and cons of Republicans actually fielding him as a candidate.

Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2006 11:20 PM

I don't mean to interrupt, but a relative just sent this link-

http://usawakeup.org/index.htm

If you've seen it already, sorry, if not, please look it over.

Posted by: JBarsimson at December 17, 2006 11:26 PM

Concerned Citizen: "I suppose the next hard step is defining how such a "Moderate" is still Muslim according to certain Islamofascists."

Or according to Islam period.

Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2006 11:29 PM

remote_control said:

...putting the prescriptive goal of unity of Left and Right above the descriptive reality of the very Left-Right dynamic that is concretely hindering that unity.

Obviously you do not think that the points where that analogy breaks down hinder your conclusion. (That your analogy breaks down at points is nothing surprising, of course, since every analogy breaks down here and there, or it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an identity.)

The relation between Islam and the West is something like that between predator and prey in the wild. The relation between democratic Left and democratic Right is more like that between a quarreling husband and wife who are both decent human beings. Does that mean your comparison is not quite to the point? I don't know. But I sense myself about to rehash arguments I've already made, so I'll spare you and myself, at least till I have something newer to say on this.

I read your comment on the John Lewis thread. Useful points you make. But I thought Lewis was saying that through the application of brute force and relentless attack, political Islam can be absolutely forbidden and destroyed, and if anything is left over when political Islam is gone, that non-political vestige will be left alone. It was sort of like he was saying, "I'm going to cut out part of your brain and if you survive that operation, ok, but don't dare try to reinsert the removed gray matter, or I'll rip off your head." He was not saying that a "political Islam" and an "Islam" are separate or not separate. He was saying Political Islam is separable by means of a dangerous and violent operation followed by lifelong monitoring and extremely aggressive attacks on any part of the patient that shows signs of relapse into the disease.

True, as things stand now, the world would do a bad job following Lewis' prescription, which would be PC-ized so as to become exactly the self-destructive mode of Western response Lewis criticized so much in his lecture. Also true that, unlike Islam, World War II Shinto was not a stateless global phenomenon. And you are no doubt right that lots of Sharia supporters would simply go underground in response to Lewis' world war. But despite its limits, I still find Lewis' article brilliant.

I wonder if Shinto before the Japanese defeat in World War II was as entirely political as Islam is? If so, then that would seem to undermine the argument that one cannot possibly filter out a political Islam from a non-political Islam.

Posted by: traeh at December 17, 2006 11:57 PM

So why exactly is Newt widely considered unelectable, even in a republican primary?

For the same reason Dan Quayle is unelectable. He endured a sustained, all out media assault that managed to inculcate reflexive hisses and hyena laughing out of knuckle-draggers who think they are erudite because they can regurgitate the opinions of the evening news or Oprah. That, and a few overplayed peccadilloes, an abrasive and overly blunt manner, etc.

From the much maligned Wikipedia:

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him an easy target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. In 1997 a strong majority of Americans believed Gingrich should have been replaced as Speaker of the House, and he held an all-time low job approval rating of 28%.[12] During this period, Gingrich was at the forefront of Republican calls for the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton for commiting perjury by lying under oath during the Lewinsky scandal[citation needed], and he focused on the perjury charges as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. Republicans claimed that the focus was not the tryst itself, but perjurious statements made by the President in connection with the Lewinsky tryst. Democratic candidates in races across the country targeted Gingrich specifically during the campaign season. Commentator David Horowitz estimated that 80,000 television spots ran over the course of the election season on Gingrich. The Democratic efforts would ultimately prove successful, although it was Republican insiders who forced Gingrich to resign.

The Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seats, the poorest results in 34 years for any party not in control of the White House. Having led the GOP to focus on the impeachment project as a principal strategy, Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been elected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 18, 2006 12:04 AM

All we get from these mental cases at CAIR and the flying phonies are deception, stunts, and a total denial of responsibility in the matter. The whole ecclesiastical-costume-Islamic-puppet-show should be performed in a mental hospital. Then maybe our airports can be free again.

Posted by: Frank at December 17, 2006 09:55 AM

... take any member of the umma.. CAIR, MAS, ISNA, Mahdi, Dougie Musharraf Arafat, Saddam.. any member of the umma.... and you will find nothing but deception. It is om their religion.. to kill infidels. If they can kill you, won't they scare / cheat / lie? If you want to define the enemy in one word.. umma!

Posted by: Alert at December 18, 2006 12:51 AM

All we get from these mental cases at CAIR and the flying phonies are deception, stunts, and a total denial of responsibility in the matter. The whole ecclesiastical-costume-Islamic-puppet-show should be performed in a mental hospital. Then maybe our airports can be free again.

Posted by: Frank at December 17, 2006 09:55 AM

... take any member of the umma.. CAIR, MAS, ISNA, Mahdi, Dougie Musharraf Arafat, Saddam.. any member of the umma.... and you will find nothing but deception. It is om their religion.. to kill infidels. If they can kill you, won't they scare / cheat / lie? If you want to define the enemy in one word.. umma!

Posted by: Alert at December 18, 2006 1:01 AM

...which is why I would vote for Mr. Gingrich should he choose to run for president.

Posted by: angryeagle at December 18, 2006 1:27 AM

traeh,

The relation between Islam and the West is something like that between predator and prey in the wild. The relation between democratic Left and democratic Right is more like that between a quarreling husband and wife who are both decent human beings.

I would agree; but you can see how a decent, yet emotionally obstreperous spouse could get so wound up about a domestic problem, it would distract from the necessary actions the family must take against a motorcycle gang of Hell's Angels surrounding the house and already breaking windows and shouting that they are going to storm the house, rape all the women, kill everybody, and burn it to the ground. Now, throw in the added detail that the obstreperous spouse actually thinks the Hell's Angels aren't such bad people, they are misunderstood, maybe some of them are open to "reason", it's only a tiny minority who are actually threatening the house. Etc. Now imagine that, even though the defender of the house is the husband, he tends to be dominated by his wife, her mother, and two grandmothers, and the only people who understand the full complexities of the danger is some uncle and a few nephews nobody listens to, who must stay in the den and are never allowed to weigh in on family matters.

Now you see why the more immediate problem is not the surrounding Muslims, but those who are hindering our rational analysis and response to them. And why are they hindering us? Look at a representive response to this question from this site, by one of its main representatives:

"what has happened to the Western ability to see through the fog of an issue and analyze it correctly?"
-- from a posting above

I don't know. Mass democracy and the degradation of the democratic dogma. Everyone has an opinion apparently equal to that of everyone else. The failure or inability to teach literature and history properly. The failure to understand how to take in data and weigh it. -- Hugh Fitzgerald

That seems like a strangely vague and threadbare answer to such a weighty question. Of course, if we could just shove those family members out of the way who are getting in our way of defending our house, it wouldn't matter much why they are hindering us; but they are much too dominant and mainstream for us to be able to do that. A little more in-depth analysis -- and, frankly, concern -- seems to be in order to explain the massively entrenched success and power of PC.

Posted by: remote_control at December 18, 2006 3:10 AM

Strom Thurmond called newt Gingrich "Nude"
Which sounds to us vulager and crude.
But that feisty old coot,
Was just saying "Newt",
With a "Kalina" accent embued!

Yes, Gingrich told it like it is.

Advice: Just in case we're ever in a hijacked plane and pull one like those folks over Pennsylvania, lt's carry brats with us to be sure that some of the would-be shahids face Allah with pork in them.

Posted by: Kepha at December 18, 2006 7:38 AM

remote_control:
Very nice how you took my analogy and ran with it, hoisting me with my own petard. Your extension of the metaphor did help increase my clarity about the issue. And it was good to read that you'd agree that both the democratic Left and the democratic Right are made up of decent human beings. That you would give the Left such a brotherly assessment is not something I'd have guessed from your other posts. And that's my point: a certain brotherliness among democrats, whether of the Left or Right, probably should be more evident than it has been. At least if one is trying to create some consensus between Left and Right about Islam. Let me try to be clearer.

I would agree with you that people should discuss more often and more seriously the blindness of the wife to the Hell's Angels outside the house. So how to go about that discussion in such a way as to get the wife to rethink her opinions and take another look out the window? Do you think you will have the best chance of getting her to do that if you point out only her flaws? She may pretend to be only a rational being sometimes, but she has feelings, and if you treat her with nothing but continual disdain she'll be anything but Mr. Spock when hearing your opinions.

That is the problem with making the issue overly partisan. The PC-disease will be entrenched and the two parties will remain so at war with each other they will be unable to attend to the Hell's Angels. So let the PC-disease be criticized more thoroughly, but let it be done in a way that doesn't neglect the wife's virtues, whatever they may be, however slight they may be. She can't entirely help it if she's blind. And her virtues might not be as slight as some think.

If, however, the wife is incurable, then trying to convince her would be futile. The only hope would be to try to cure the husband and alert the others in the house, in the hope that doing that would be sufficient to allow us to mount a defense. I don't buy that. I suspect part of the wife's blindness is the way the husband talks to her, not respecting her even at her worth, however modest.

But maybe our difference of opinion here is just a difference of temperament. Some temperaments are more pugnacious, some more conciliatory, and both kinds may be necessary, though not necessarily in equal measure.

Posted by: traeh at December 19, 2006 5:00 AM

traeh,

There are other important characteristics of the "wife" I left out --

1) she thinks her own family & household are in many ways just as bad, no better, or even worse than the Hell's Angels

2) stemming in great part from #1, she thinks her own family & household are mostly or even totally to blame for any problems emanating from the Hell's Angels

Also, to reiterate, the "wife" is not alone in a 50/50 standoff with her "husband":

Although PC originated within the Leftist orbit, it has become dominant and mainstream: the "wife" along with others dominates the household, and many of her beliefs have influenced the "husband" so that in many ways, she's really "the boss". Therefore, the "husband" in this analogy would not be a Robert Spencer: Spencer would be the uncle in the den that nobody, including the "husband" (Bush), listens to.

Finally, as you've pointed out before, analogiae claudicant: my analogy has key imperfections -- the most significant of which involves the "Hell's Angels". In the actual situation we are in, there is far more of a fudge factor by which the PC multiculturalists can continually separate the Muslim villains from Islam itself. With my analogy, of course, that kind of separation fudge factor of dangerous Hell's Angels from harmless Hell's Angels would be difficult to construct, given the scenario; and if I tried to tweak the scenario to account for it in any kind of intellectually convincing way, the whole scenario might become a little too silly.

Of course, it seems almost self-evident to us Jihad Watchers that such a separation of Muslim villains from Islam itself is ridiculous; but if we are intellectually honest, we can at least recognize the real material -- coupled with the ideological interpretive mechanism by which to process that real material -- that provides the fodder and structure for such a fudge factor to be believed by so many otherwise reasonably intelligent people.

Posted by: remote_control at December 19, 2006 4:30 PM

remote_control said:

we can at least recognize the real material -- coupled with the ideological interpretive mechanism by which to process that real material -- that provides the fodder and structure for such a fudge factor to be believed...

By "real material" I take you to mean deception and euphemism by Muslim apologists and propagandists, and by "interpretive mechanism" you obviously mean the PC-mindset.

Posted by: traeh at December 20, 2006 4:09 AM

By "real material" I take you to mean deception and euphemism by Muslim apologists and propagandists...

Not entirely. Remember that data by itself does not render a judgement; the judgement as to what the data means has to go through an interpretive process. Some data, of course, makes it easier to come to a judgement -- the so-called "smoking gun" being the strongest kind, where the data by itself seems to deliver a judgement ready-made. The complex and disparate realm of Muslims in the world and their relation to Islam contains a field of data where the dots connecting dangerous Muslims to both

Muslims in general

and to

Islam itself

are dots that are simply not clearly delineated; there is enough of a fudge factor, patterns of dots with too many missing dots -- i.e., a sufficient distance from any smoking gun -- to provide fodder for the Muslim apologists and whitewashers. The fudge factor is real, and it is based in material -- data (and/or lacunae of data).

and by "interpretive mechanism" you obviously mean the PC-mindset.

Yes; and this PC mindset exploits (consciously or semi-consciously, depending on the person, though most PC people tend to be inherently incoherent, intellectually, anyway, rendering their degree of "consciousness" a moot point) the aforementioned fudge factor.

Posted by: remote_control at December 20, 2006 11:28 AM